Huffington Post Comments

I spent some time at the Huffington Post, and made a few comments.

Let's look at some of the replies (I replied to all of them, but only included my reply here if it was particularly good.):

ez14livin -

what you teacons cannot seem to grasp is that ayn rand and jesus are at mutually exclusive and opposite ends of the spectrum

cognitive dissonance is the only thing that keeps your heads from expl0ding

GrafZeppelin127 -

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your corporate overlords appreciate it. Go right on believing that Mr. Ryan's plan will prevent "government" from "interfering" with -you-, not from interfering with -them-. And please, go right on believing that once our corporate masters are freed from "government interference," they will allow you to "live freely." 


typical response to one of my comments:
 Tavon -

Yeah, right. So, why do Republicans want all those laws about individual choice for people's personal lives?

Abuse of power, bad business by greedy CEOs....we should not give them more freedom.
At any other level, it would be outlawed....they should not keep getting off with OUR Freedoms. 

demotom -

You are welcome. I do not want the kind of "freedom" and "liberty" that the radical Christian right is trying to shove down my throat. I am too old to learn the Goose step. [editor's note: if this person's comparing me to a nazi, I meet Ann Coulter's definition of a conservative. A conservative is a person who was compared to a nazi by a liberal.]

msuzye -
 
If you feel you lack so much freedom and liberty...why not make your life easier and buy an island somewhere and be your own god?

my reply to that comment:

Thanks for the suggestion.

I've only just graduated college so I don't have enough money to buy an island.
And the job hunting is tough. Thanks Obama!

I will look into becoming my own god, however. How do you suggest that I do that?


Another reply of mine (to a different post):

 Why are those of you on the left so insistent on raising taxes?

If we want to balance the budget more than just the top 1% will need to be taxed more.

Why is it not "responsible" to spend less than you take in?

If you were spending more than you were making, do you

A.) spend less
B.) demand that your employer pay you more
C.) demand that the government give you "free" stuff at someone else's expense


 jnratliff -

Why is your side always starting off with a big lie?
You do understand that the size and the cost of government has gone up more under republicans than with dems?
It is a fact. What are some of the ones you complain about the most? The EPA?
Nixon created the EPA to make the people pay for toxic waste clean up of sites polluted by private companies.
Health Insurance? Another Nixon deal.
Down to the last biggest increases in the size and cost of government by your hero GW Bush, remember the department of homeland security? How about medicare part D? If you learn what you are talking about you won't be so ignorant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


bsweary-

Expansion does not of necessity mean "in charge of". Your statements make leaps the actual ideas don't support. The only "control" that will occur with a more realistic and ultimately fair taxation process will be "control" over the smallest group of Americans having more say/sway in the democratic process than the vast majority of us via there $ = speech protections. And to the doctor question--the control and decisions about healthcare are now completely in the hands of insurance companies. The govenrment(sic) could do no worse in your anti-government fantasies and a lot better in my anti-fascist ones. [editor's note: If he thinks that I am "anti-government" how can I be a fascist too?]

my reply:

 What word would you prefer me to use, in place of "expansion," in order to describe the government's interference in our lives? (I defined "interference" for another commenter, do I need to do that again?)

You are sure optimistic that ACA will improve things. Do you know anyone who is happy with their: Social Security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?

If we were allowed to buy insurance across state lines, buy insurance with high deductible, and if there was some tort reform healthcare insurance would have many more options available. All of those things, that I just listed, are illegal currently.

Let me summarize the issue:

1. government interferes with healthcare
2. prices go up
3. government interferes more, and adds to the deficit, and interferes with personal liberty and freedom (should I define them for you?)
4. (this is my prediction, but it is based on what has happened everywhere else that the government has interfered with healthcare) prices go up more, quality and quantity decline.

A reply of mine that I quite like:

"For profit institutions, that are in league with the government."

I had a debate earlier, with someone on this very website, who was opposed the the government and big businesses getting along too well. Is this not an excellent example of that?

But what would be the best option overall?

I suggest that the best healthcare system would be the one with no government interference at all. Such a system would provide anything under the sun, for a cost. But that cost could be carried in different ways. A healthy person could get insurance with a high deductible. And someone who is less healthy would need to pay more.

Another benefit of no government interference would be that one American would not be required, by law, to pay for another American.

If the government is going to pay, then, in order to prevent over use of healthcare facilities, it will need to restrict what people can and cannot do. Even more than it does now. Rollerblading? too dangerous, illegal. Not exercising? bad for your health, required. This is the natural order of how the government works.

Some people claim that the government should pay for birth control because it will cost more later. But it will only cost more later because the government has pledged to take care of every American, regardless of their decisions.

Andre Williams 1984-
I'll gladly take the challenge. "It is unfair that those who have are expected to help those who have not. Poor people are poor because they are ALL lazy bums and were not born with the same gifts as me; they are cheap labor, nothing more. We privileged few should not strive to help the country prosper as a whole, but remain content to hoard money as we wish, with little regard to the little people that helped us get where we are by letting us step on their backs"

Buttercup200-

Lose your job and get sick. Then post again.

Captain Parker -

Bet you're one of those who favors no cuts to the defense budget. OK...why should one American be forced to pay for a junior enlisted person's family expenses for a family he/she could never afford tto support if he/she weren't in the military? Cuts both ways Bunky.

 Captain Parker-

No...you just hate those who don't share your country club/libertarian "me first and always" philosophy.




Here are the results for the day (I'm sure that I'll get more replies tomorrow):

Explicit name calling:

"teacons"
"Bunky"

Implied name calling:

nazi
liar
facscist
poor hater
hater of those that don't agree with me

The comment of the day goes to: Buttercup200

"Lose your job and get sick. Then post again. "