Harry Reid on Obamacare victims' stories: "All of them are untrue"

[gm652]

Sick little man..Slimy liar...

 

[88GT]

Yep, it's socialism/redistribution of wealth/a tax......run away run away.... Yes we pay for services we don't use. I don't mind paying a bit more to help out. I can afford it. What's wrong with me?

The false dichotomy of forced confiscation vs. no charity at all rears it's ugly head again.

 

[steveh_131]

Yep, it's socialism/redistribution of wealth/a tax......run away run away.... Yes we pay for services we don't use. I don't mind paying a bit more to help out. I can afford it. What's wrong with me?

Then donate to charity and leave me alone.

 

[actaeon277]

Then donate to charity and leave me alone.

 

[BogWalker]

**** him and all of his cronies. My family just received a letter that our insurance costs are doubling due to new federal regulations. Our plan didn't even change any! Oh, but good news we qualify for government assistance with costs. Trying to shove us all on the dole to keep us dependent on the federal tit.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

My family just received a letter that our insurance costs are doubling due to new federal regulations. .

LIAR. Grampa Reid says that ain't true!

 

[jamil]

Yep, it's socialism/redistribution of wealth/a tax......run away run away.... Yes we pay for services we don't use. I don't mind paying a bit more to help out. I can afford it. What's wrong with me?

I don't mind paying a bit to help out either. It's called charity only when its something you feel personally compelled to do. But a majority compelling everyone by gunpoint to pay that bit to help out isn't charitable at all. It's armed theft by means of democracy. So you don't get to say you're being charitable by advocating for it because it's not charitable. So be honest about it. Don't try so hard to make it seem like Obamacare is just another community service we pay for that we don't use, like, I dunno, filling pot holes on public roads.

 

[findingZzero]

I guess I'm a socialist/libertarian......

 

[jamil]

I guess I'm a socialist/libertarian......

Ah. Good then. You now oppose Obamacare. We can be allies on that. Can I assume that you've given up on a lot of other stuff you've advocated for in the past? Because words do have meanings outside of our own creations.

 

[findingZzero]

You are not a schlump. You are not a schlump. You are a plinker.....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Doctor To Harry Reid: Yes, Those ObamaCare Horror Stories Are True - Downtrend.com

 

[jamil]

You are not a schlump. You are not a schlump. You are a plinker.....

Are they mutually exclusive? Seems like a person can be both a schlump and plinker. Perhaps, not a good plinker.

 

[jamil]

Doctor To Harry Reid: Yes, Those ObamaCare Horror Stories Are True - Downtrend.com

There's not much that probably frustrates the media more than when one of their own boldly proclaims what becomes publicly, demonstrably, obviously false.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Those ObamaCare horror stories are all lies.

 

[findingZzero]

Ah. Good then. You now oppose Obamacare. We can be allies on that. Can I assume that you've given up on a lot of other stuff you've advocated for in the past? Because words do have meanings outside of our own creations.

I'm now a tabala rasa. Give me a bullet list and I'll sleep on it.
p.s. As a libertarian/socialist nobody should tell us what to do, but because we've evolved, we all do the right thing. For those who are still tribal and don't yet get it, I'll supply a list. Libertarian/socialist/fascist....

 

[jamil]

I'm now a tabala rasa. Give me a bullet list and I'll sleep on it.
p.s. As a libertarian/socialist nobody should tell us what to do, but because we've evolved, we all do the right thing. For those who are still tribal and don't yet get it, I'll supply a list. Libertarian/socialist/fascist....

I think it's best to call myself a pragmatic libertarianish idealist. Then I can say what mostly motivates me, yet be practical about it. The PLI party. It's a party of one so far.

But that sure seems to stir up a ****storm with the objectivists.

 

[88GT]

I'm now a tabala rasa. Give me a bullet list and I'll sleep on it.
p.s. As a libertarian/socialist nobody should tell us what to do, but because we've evolved, we all do the right thing. For those who are still tribal and don't yet get it, I'll supply a list. Libertarian/socialist/fascist....

One problem with your little utopia: your definition of what's right and my definition just might not be the same thing. As a socialist, you clearly value the collective more than the individual. I, as a.....still working on that....value the individual and his liberty only, even to the detriment of the collective if needs be. In point of fact, I reject the notion of the collective as an organic entity with any real contributive, redeeming characteristics as all behavior is inherently individualistic. The collective does nothing, creates nothing, preserves nothing. Individuals, on the other hand, are responsible for all that is good (and bad). But being the champion of the individual that I am, I fully support your right to choose to subordinate your individualism to a collective just as long as you don't force me to join ranks with you and subordinate my individualism. That way your individualism can shine (or not, as is probably more likely to be the case) in your collective, and I can surpass even that as an individual.

I think it's best to call myself a pragmatic libertarianish idealist. Then I can say what mostly motivates me, yet be practical about it. The PLI party. It's a party of one so far.

But that sure seems to stir up a ****storm with the objectivists.

I'd subscribe to your newsletter if you had one.

 

[jamil]

One problem with your little utopia: your definition of what's right and my definition just might not be the same thing. As a socialist, you clearly value the collective more than the individual. I, as a.....still working on that....value the individual and his liberty only, even to the detriment of the collective if needs be. In point of fact, I reject the notion of the collective as an organic entity with any real contributive, redeeming characteristics as all behavior is inherently individualistic. The collective does nothing, creates nothing, preserves nothing. Individuals, on the other hand, are responsible for all that is good (and bad). But being the champion of the individual that I am, I fully support your right to choose to subordinate your individualism to a collective just as long as you don't force me to join ranks with you and subordinate my individualism. That way your individualism can shine (or not, as is probably more likely to be the case) in your collective, and I can surpass even that as an individual.


I'd subscribe to your newsletter if you had one.

I think you're being sarcastic, but you could probably write the article on individualism for my first newsletter.

The only thing I'd add sounds axiomatic, but bears saying. Not only is the collective not a living entity, it's not a real entity at all. it's just an artificial device to describe the aggregate characteristics of groups of individuals. Only the individuals themselves are real. They naturally posses the highest level of sovereignty. Free will. They can only cede that sovereignty to others by choice. Of course threat of harm can coerce the choice. But it's still a choice.

That for this. FindingZzero, your way requires me to cede more personal sovereignty than our social contract, the Constitution allows. And you're willing to use the threat of harm to make me do it. And then you imply that you are more charitable for it, and you over simplify things to make it seem like people who want to keep the contract we were born into are somehow abnormal.

 

[88GT]

I think you're being sarcastic, but you could probably write the article on individualism for my first newsletter.

The only thing I'd add sounds axiomatic, but bears saying. Not only is the collective not a living entity, it's not a real entity at all. it's just an artificial device to describe the aggregate characteristics of groups of individuals. Only the individuals themselves are real. They naturally posses the highest level of sovereignty. Free will. They can only cede that sovereignty to others by choice. Of course threat of harm can coerce the choice. But it's still a choice.

That for this. FindingZzero, your way requires me to cede more personal sovereignty than our social contract, the Constitution allows. And you're willing to use the threat of harm to make me do it. And then you imply that you are more charitable for it, and you over simplify things to make it seem like people who want to keep the contract we were born into are somehow abnormal.

I assure you with the utmost sincerity that there was absolutely no sarcasm intended. I don't know that I would join your party (in keeping with the analogy ), but based on the label and your posts, I'd definitely be interested in keeping abreast of the goings-on within your....movement.