Your comparison of public roads to universal health care is inaccurate. One does NOT limit peoples’ choices, nor does it demand compliance with a particular activity for the sake of their own good. Paying taxes to pay for public roads does NOT, in any way, compare for fines/imprisonment for failure to get a state mandated minimum regarding health insurance. Not even car insurance requirements (which are state, not federal requirements, may I add) are not even that brutal.

In addition, one does not HAVE to get car insurance, you don’t have to own a car! This is not true of health care - your mere existence is enough to demand your compliance. Again, your comparison is weak and ineffectual.

Drunk driving laws also address immediate harm and danger - health care does not. Again, your choice of comparisons are wrong. And sex-offender registration laws? Really? Do you *honestly* think they’re comparable? Really, they aren’t. Breaking a law and being punished for harming others (or putting others in harm’s way) are hardly the same as doing nothing more than putting yourself, possibly, at risk of being unable to afford health care.

Your comparisons are non-starters. Please, try again.

the sinner,

Patrick

Where is the “cult of personality”, except in the eyes of the Right? Am I allowed to say “I like Obama” without being worshipfully adoring?
He was elected by a popular majority. He is liked (even the worst polls put his popularity at 50% of the public). Do you distinguish between a “cult of personality” and simply liking someone — and if so, what do you define the difference as?

“yeah, universal health care can very reasonably be called fascistic. It is an attempt to control people and their choices.”

hmmm . . .if we go with that definition, do you also consider public roads “fascist”? After all, they limit your choices — you can’t lay your own highway between Chicago and Philadelphia.

What choice is being denied to you by universal health care? The choice to not have health insurance? Fair enough. What about mandatory auto insurance laws? Fascist? You don’t have the choice to drive uninsured. Hell, driver’s license laws prohibit you from driving without registering. Fascist? Would you prefer I drive the same roads with you without insurance, so if I hit you you pay for my choice?
Heck, by this logic all laws are fascist. Drunk driving laws deny me the choice to drive drunk on the same roads with your wife and kids. Are you philosophically opposed to drunk driving laws? It seems that by your logic these laws are pure fascism. Do you support the freedom of choice to drive drunk? I’m prohibited from choosing the capitalist path of selling crystal meth. If I’m a sex offender, I’m prohibited from choosing to live next to an elementary school.

Is this “fascist”? Do you oppose these laws?

The bills going to vote on healthcare don’t ban private insurance. The only “loss of freedom” is being required to be insured. What makes this more “fascist” than auto insurance, or drunk driving laws?

It is inarguably an increase in government influence on private lives — you’re not currently required to be insured, so if they require you to get insured that is, by definition, more influence. But . . . “fascism”? Did you oppose those sex-offender registration laws too?

Your snarky, and completely unearned, hubris aside, yeah, universal health care can very reasonably be called fascistic. It is an attempt to control people and their choices. When the controlling entity is rabidly secular and promotes a cult of personality, it is even easier to make said argument.

We aren’t stupid, we simply don’t drink the cool-aid that you appear to be drowining in.

the sinner,

Patrick

Yes, it is left wing. Read any of the actual fascist pamphlets/writings prior to taking power - they all talk about the fact that Marxism would only work on a *national* scale. The Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers’ Party for nothin’. I know that you were probably “raised” believing that extreme right-wing was totalitarianism and fascism, but that is a false teaching.

Mr. Goldberg, in “Liberal Fascism,” adeptly traces the ideological roots of fascism within “progressivism.” Of course, both collectivism and radical individualism are just different sides of the same coin. Mr. Goldberg also illustrates how Moscow didn’t have a problem with the fascists, who claimed loyalty to Marx, until the fascists in both Italy and Germany refused to bow down to Muscovite rule. Then the word went out to both operatives and useful idiots, concentrated in academia, to declare fascism “right-wing.” Thus, we’ve had decades of misinformation spread by often ignorant (as in innocent) individuals and, just as often, by those who are knowingly participating in an historical lie.

One thing Goldberg didn’t talk about, from what I remember, was the fact that the fascists had no problem slipping into power for a couple of reasons. First, the people in both Italy and Germany had, for several years, languished under socialists and communists in their respective governments. What the fascists were offering wasn’t much of a difference, economically speaking. Second, and related to the first, the fascists simply pointed out the truth - that the so-called Marxists were actually fat-cats who were hardly living the “proletarian” life. In fact, the fascists were, mostly made up of the lowest elements, economically speaking, in both Germany an Italy. They were living the lives of hardships their fellow countrymen were suffering and could project of feeling of empathy.

So, yeah, you were taught wrong, as are the vast majority of people in the West. Even more in Europe.

the sinner,

Patrick

Dick Bottoms is just showing off his intimate knowledge of gay sex acts. A guy with a name like Dick Bottoms should be a bit more careful with using gay-innuendo smearing technique, doncha think?

Sad to see the depths to which the left will descend to avoid real reasoned debate.

Heh - this may be one of the more ironic comments I’ve seen here in a long time. Please don’t speak of “reasoned debate” after accusing someone of being a homosexual.

ed.

I’m a Dem and yet I feel sorry for the party that has only this sentiment to motivate them. Sorry for my country, too, which needs ideas, not silliness like this.

You have the sense of humor of a goat.

Unclench your anus and lighten up, asshole.

ed.

sorry, I started giggling so hard I couln’t type.

Teabagging is not specifically gay.

As for showing respect for teabaggers, you have to be kidding. I don’t show respect for PETA nuts and you guys are about two steps lower on the evolutionary chain than they are. Teabaggers are the political equivalent of Scientologists in the genus Loonis Americanis