Does "racist" have any meaning at this point? Years ago I concluded "homophobe" was meaningless because a) it was linguistically illiterate (i.e., it really meant "fear of the same"), b) a phobia is a potentially disabling condition and not suitable grounds for an epithet, and c) it covered such a wide range, from physical assault and murder, to vague discomfort, that it actually described nothing more than the user's contempt for whomever it was applied to.

In this case, racist means specifically anyone who is not impressed by Barack Obama, and generally anyone who does not agree with a leftist. What perplexes me is that these people ("these people?" dead giveaway!!!) can use the term with a straight face.

To paraphrase Cicero, I wonder that a liberal doesn't laugh on meeting another liberal.

Universal Health Care leads to serfdom?

So all of Western Europe is filled with serfs? And Australia? And New Zealand?

Almost all of whom have a higher national life expectancy for their population AND spend less per capita on health care?

Someone needs their history lesson. He thinks black people haven't been slave owners? White people haven't been slaves here? Perhaps he should open a history book some day. How weird.

Glenn,

If the numbers are not compiled the same way, they are meaningless. For example, preemies who have fairly slim odds of surviving, even with heroic care in an NICU, are recorded as live births in the US and the 2-3 days they live go into the calculations for our average life expectancy. In most of Europe, they're recorded as stillbirths and don't factor into the life expectancy calculations.

The Contrarian doesn't notice that socialism can look like its working for several generations, who prove that crime does pay.

Glenn,

To answer your first four questions: Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Well, I wouldn't call it serfdom. You're taking something away from people, giving it to the government, then the government gives it back to people in a manner that they see fit. There are other words for that.

The life expectancy part is irrelevant to the serfdom part. It's like saying slavery was better than freedom because black slaves had lower unemployment rates than free blacks.

Also, the "road to serfdom" line is taken from a book by F.A. Hayek.

Yes Brett; When the socialist entitlement programs explode here in the USSA, we may consider that our own experiment in socialism has finally failed.

Seems like it's what the people want, all one can do is plan accordingly.

In Canada and western Europe, both places I spend much time in, universal health care is the norm, all have equal access to waiting lists, actual care will be provided when someone in the profession gets around to it. (If you are fortunate enough to still be alive.)
In Canada health care funding is tied to waiting lists, long waiting lists demand more funding, So who in their right mind will reduce a wait list and thus reduce their income?
As for costs, the cost of "administration of health care" is almost as high as the cost of the health care provided.
Taxes in Western Europe, especially Scandinavia take about 60 % of earned income.

Unlike Barak, I AM the descendent of slaves. My family was brought to the New World in 1697 and sold to work on a plantation in Virginia.

Using Leftist "moral authority card" I win this argument. No dissent allowed.

My big objection to positive rights (the right to have the government do something for you) is that it creates the sticky situation that sooner or later circumstances will make fulfilling a right a practical impossibility. Which will then put us in a positiion where a court will say "yes, it is a right, but the government doesn't have to do it anyway."

And that will be a disasterous precedent. However often we are unable to get our rights recognized; once recognized, they cannot be ignored. Positive rights will end that guarantee.

"Universal Health Care leads to serfdom?"

I'd so no, but how about we use a meaningful term instead of that content-free euphemism"?

(We have, here in the United States, "Universal Health Care". Here in Omaha we have more hospital beds than there people to use them. Last time I was in St. Joseph's (or what ever thy are calling it this week)(to visit or work--I would not be admitted there if I have a choice), there were whole "pods" closed off, the lights were not even on.)

How about we talk about "socialized Medicine" which is the real topic here.

The evidence is overwhelming: When the blood-sucking class gets something for free, they become enslaved by it, unable to provide for themselves.

I have noticed a pattern that I am going to turn my feeble mind to.

When the founding fathers talked about "right", the price tag was not written with dollars or pounds, but with intangibles like "their lives". The beneficiary of the right paid, or was willing to pay for the "right".

When the bloodsucking class talks about "rights", they mean rather mundane things that have (in our case) a dollar-and-cents price _to_be_paid_by_somebody_else.

...the coward that wrote the Kos entry uses a pseudonym, because like all Marxists he hasn't the courage to put his name to what he believes. The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, put their names to documents that would have cost them their lives, had they lost. That is a fundamental issue of integrity, which both he and I understand very well, although from different sides.

I forget, who wrote the Federalist Papers?

While I would never compare the value of Daily Kos to that the Federalist Papers, to argue that the use of pseudonym is somehow indicative of "Marxism," or that "[w]hen authorship of something is not acknowledged, it's as if there's really no one behind it" is just inane.

Sincerely,

Dr. Nobel Dynamite

Dr. Nobel, he wasn't claiming that the use of a pseudonym is indicative of Marxism, but that Marxism is indicative of cowardice. I don't think he was claiming that an anonymous writing is not written by anyone, but the anonymity is harmful to civil discussion.

Mostly Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, as I recall. Though Eric was probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

Tim

Mostly Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, as I recall. Though Eric was probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

Actually Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. The point, however, is that those gentleman chose to publish their work under a pseudonym.

Pseudonymous, but obviously not anonymous. Do you really disagree with Eric's point about internet discourse?

You yourself are an example that, even though it's probably not your true name (mine is mine), the use of a recognizable monikor that follows you around contributes to civil posts.

Tim

Pseudonymous, but obviously not anonymous.

You are conflating and distinguishing anonymous/pseudonymous where it suits your purposes. The posts you're discussing are not actually anonymous, but posted under an internet pseudonym.

I would agree that in many instances people on the internet post things anonymously/pseudonymously that they would never attach their name to. That does not change the fact, however, that the original post's argument that pseudonymous publications are somehow inherently lacking in credibility is just silly.

Dr. Nobel Dynamite:
"That does not change the fact, however, that the original post's argument that pseudonymous publications are somehow inherently lacking in credibility is just silly."

That wasn't what Eric said. What he said was that posting without using one's real name makes it easier to slide into outrageousness. Whittle did condemn "all Marxists" as hiding behind anonymity, which is clearly wrong, and perhaps it's fair to say that Eric shouldn't have cited that passage approvingly; but Eric himself only called hiding behind anonymity "typical" for people taking cheap shots. You mean to say that your experience on the Internet doesn't bear that out?