Added: 2 years ago
From: minnesotachris
Views: 4,680
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (284)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Listen to Ron Paul's words , it is exactly what is happening now

    The trolls who make ridiculous comments and accusations against Ron Paul are paid trolls ...most work for the banking cartels ..... these banking cartels are foreign owned and run by traitors to their countries , but the profit well ....

    EVERY Central bank in every country is corrupt.....

  • douchebag

  • I pull my own weight, and i expect not to have to pull others, why should i subsidize people with my taxes who don't work and are able? Those people want us to pay for their living expenses, it's criminal.

  • Should you, god forbid, develop an expensive illness, like cancer, your h.c. bills could far exceed the premiums you paid.

    In which case it's other peoples premiums that will be subsidizing your h.c. costs.

    Nothing wrong with that. It's the way insurance is supposed to work. The costs are absorbed by a risk pool, rather than falling on the backs of the sick & injured.

    It's just sad that you are against ensuring everyone is covered by h.c. insurance.

  • @megarational Ha ha ha ... you're a fucking moron. Stay a slave. It's where you belong.

  • You are the slave. Willingly bum fucked by the insurance companies & too dumb to realize it.

  • @2242bzo Your the slave to irrational and unethical thinking.

  • @quicksiliva You're a slave for a hard cock up your ass.

  • Unethical and very satanic of you.

  • @quicksiliva Come join me in my lake of fire.

  • @quicksiliva You're a slave to my penis.

  • @megarational LOL..... Ron's a Doctor.  Why would he want everyone to get equal healthcare? That would be too much like Jesus.

  • im beginning to think ron paul is a moron. You only need a basic economics course to realize how a free market will function with the inelastic demand curve that is healthcare.

    Free market only works when consumers have freedom to shop around. You dont google cheapest hospitals in the middle of a heart attack. You goto the closest and pay whatever they tell you to pay. Thats not free market. Free market fails at healthcare. Its not like comparing flatscreen tvs.

  • Some hospital systems have web pages where potential patients can get cost estimates on various procedures, so it is not impossible for them to provide it. If the customer demands it, eventually all of the hospitals will have to provide the info.

    Obviously in the middle of a heart attack you don't have time to shop around. But that's not a fair situation - when your car runs out of gas on the street, do you shop around for the cheapest price, or push it into the closest station?

  • First,heart attacks are extreme situations,emergency situations that can probably be taken care of by some form of catastropic insurance,in the way that we buy fire insurance on the off chance that we have a fire. The vast majority of our healthcare needs to be paid for out of pocket to create an incentive for the healthcare consumer to care about what hc cost so that the healthcare providers care about cost. The free market has'nt failed.We don't have a healthcare market. We need to create one.

  • some form of catastrophic insurance if you have it.

    im just saying most people dont shop around when they are near death.

    The reason the free market works is because we have the ability to choose. When you remove the ability to choose, free market no longer works.

  • Emergency situations could be handled by catastrophic insurance which most people would buy & those who don't must bear the risk associated with their own decisions & maybe depend on the kindness of others or their own resources. Besides,most health care is'nt emergency care,but is care that can be provided with the time allowed to make choices. And there would be more choices in a freer system.

  • Free market also will not work when a group of people come together to make themselves more economically powerful further making it harder for smaller companies to do business at all. I'm not really sure if there ever was or will be a free market or if its the best course of action given how out of control corruption is in corporate American business.

  • President's Rhetoric: "If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices." -President Obama, Sept. 9, 2009

    Reality: Both bills leave approx. 24 mil uninsured after the first 10 yrs. As for the underinsured, expanding Medicaid by 33% and cutting $483 Bill from an already-insolvent Medicare will only increase the chances of patients facing less access to lower quality care

  • The bill provides additional Medicare stabilization fund $ that should extend the life of Medicare by 10 years. The biggest danger to Medicare services is to do nothing because the costs are rising at an unsustainable rate. Under the House bill a large part of the h.c. reform funds will come from a surtax on those making more than 1/2 million $ per. yr. - a move polls show most Americans are in favor of.

  • Amsterdam, Response from the Secretary at the SPUSA regarding your comments that I emailed"

    "The person identifying himself as a SPUSA officer is not conveying SPUSA

    policies. We don't support such measures. We support a multi-party

    democracy. Our platform and principles are on-line."

    You are a disgrace to your party.

  • Neither the SPUSA nor the SPFL support the comments by Amsterdamn78. The Party opposes all such authoritarian policies. Individual members of the Party, such as Mr. Amsterdamn78 are free to express their own opinions. Officers and other official spokesperson for the Party, however, are required to note the differences between their own opinions and those of the Party, where they exist.

  • chegitz, Thanks for the response. I understand that he doesn't represent the stated party values. However, I think people need to be exposed when they talk such nonsense in America. I only hope the SPUSA has the good sense to relieve him of his duties as Vice-Chair. The Socialist Party certainly does not need any further humiliation outside their stated policies.

  • @ah41542

    Well, I'm sure the Libertarian Party has its share of people with who have trouble with internet rage, even in leadership positions. Amsterdamn78 is actually a quite decent and gentle person IRL. If I introduced you to him you would not believe it was the person with whom you've been discussing. Part of our position is that even people with emotional issues have the right to participate in their own liberation. :-)

  • chegitz, I agree, all the parties have issues. That is why I am not a member of any of them. Amsterdam is a gentle person that wants to deport me. I'm sure I would have a lot in common with both you and Amsterdam. My problem is when I do not agree with every political view he has, he wants to "re-educate" me. I agree that Amsterdam, even with his emotional issues has the right to liberation, as long as his liberation doesn't infringe upon my constitutional rights.:)

  • I truly want to understand the political views of all parties. If I am allowed to attend a Socialist Party convention, would you take me out back and tie me to dumpster and make me listen to a propaganda tape for 24 hours? Or might we have a real discussion?

  • @ah41542 I'd only tie you to a dumpster and make you listen to propaganda if that's what you really wanted.

    As for Amsterdamn, his issue isn't that he wants to re-educate you. He issue is he gets excited and carried away. Something about the internet makes some people become their opposite.

    We can have a real conversation, but I don't think youtube is really conducisive to a constructive discussion. :-) Google me and you'll find me quickly enough.

  • chegitz, It's the excited communists that should worry everyone. When they get excited, bad things happen. The internet has a way of bringing out the truth, however opposite of stated principles.

  • @ah41542

    I have to agree here with ah41542 and emphasize that 4th Internationalists Trotskyist communist are more excitable than most. There must be room for decentralization like post-Maoism.

  • People who get excitable on the internet aren't as dangerous as people who get excitable in the real world. Amsterdam's bark is a lot worse than his bite.

    Also, don't pay attention to comraderedoctober, as far as politics or the SPUSA goes. He's one of those people you really do need to watch out for. Almost three years ago he attempted to declare himself sole leader of the SPFL. He was later expelled by a unanimous vote of the state convention.

  • We have been waiting years for the proof that chegitz here has claimed in open slandering and defaming. Chegitz has still not provide one shred of evidence that would stand up in any Florida court room. Please feel free to post your proof here to help meet your date in a real court room.

  • @ah41542

    Meetings are normally held in public places and are open, except to voting on party business. For that you have to have a "red card" to vote. The meetings are more like social engagements where voters look at what can be done in localisms based on the principles of radical democracy. It is however important to separate party business from personal opinion. One should never use their office to represent without consent, a policy needs to be addressed here?

  • comradeoct, Sounds delightful. Policy doesn't need to be addressed here. However, when someone represents himself as a party leader with disturbing comments, I wouldn't expect people to be quiet about it. I also wouldn't expect respect for the party platform. One "collective" apple ruins the whole bunch.

  • @ah41542

    When the collective is nearing one it implodes on itself to become that singularity known as dictatorship. I oppose any authoritarian style government or bureaucracy and stand behind radical democracy which more folks should read up on. It is a great book by C. Douglas Lummis.

  • Comment removed

  • Let me interject myself into your conversation for a moment,chegitz. I think that the internet is, because of we can choose to be completely anonymous--as I've chosen to be for now at least,a place of absolute freedom, where the restrictions of etiquette don't need to apply. Because you're not actually there, you can say whatever without the consequences of a face to face.

  • I think that's probably a big part of it. We also don't get the cues we need to to realize that comments are not made in hostility, and so many comments on the net come across much meaner than they are intended, which can set off a cycle of flaming.

    I try hard to step back when I feel I've been offended, reread multiple times to see if there is more than one way to interpret what has been written, and if so, I try and go with the more pleasant version. I don't always succeed, though. :-(

  • You're right. Trying to give those with whom we disagree the benefit of the doubt is necessary if we are to have civil and,hence production discussions. But,it's hard to do in this time of strong and passionate disagreement to remember that the person whose opinion is driving you crazy is maybe wrong,but probably not evil. It's what someone like me,a true believer very much involved in activism, struggle to remember.

  • @chegitz

    We know. They know.

  • There is no way you can be a collectivist and not be authoritarian. That is like saying you are a white guy with black skin.

  • chegitz, Also, Amsterdam admitted to being a Communist. Not sure how that fits in with being an executive representative of your party - or maybe it does? Perhaps you should do the democratic, or even dictatorship thing, and get him out of a representative role. Seems like the party has a few basic flaws.

  • Communism is not socialism, this is like the Left stating that a Republican is a Democrat in the sense of party ideology. Neither match too well except on certain core values near their respective roots which is why there might be some confusion on both sides?

  • Please note that the Principles section additionally support radical democracy towards socialism which means more, not less, democracy. There is no place for re-education camps. The party on the whole is already fighting against what is now being referred to as the deportation issue. We should not create one ourselves. Some comrades here might have already learned about the Philosopher's Ship under Lenin and the negative effect it had for generations.

  • I thought that the US was trying to get a type of health care that welfare countries like Australia has. What they are getting is extremely scary and waaay too much gov. intervention, even from a welfare country standpoint. It will no doubt lead to monopolies in the insurance companies. This bill is not a good thing in any way....good luck America, hope you guys can sort this chaos out.

  • Ron Paul is a fool who is unfit for public office. His belligerent views are not consistent with basic human values. The free market system in health care is breaking the nation, yet he doesn't believe Government has any role in preventing insurance companies from committing outright fraud on the American public.

  • Ron Paul is a capitalist not a corptist. This government is selling the public domain to corporations cheap. Corporate america is killing the world. Ron paul is against these corporations and government conspirators.

  • Ron Paul wants to privatize police and fire departments. But he doesn't want to regulate anything. He still wants to let business do whatever they want despite the harm they might do to others. He would not regulate Enron.

    One of his lunatic ideas is that regulation of pollution can be handled by the private sector. Someone pollutes your land -- you sue. Somone puts someting bad in your food -- you sue or your relatives sue after you are dead.

  • The statistics ell us that government is the most potent polluter of our atmosphere.

  • Its been proven that republicans in government allow corporations to pollute.

  • In the free market, waist is punished by lower profit.

    Only government run corporations can escape this. That is why the government pollutes as much as it does. They are not held accountable.

  • LOL @ federalist29! Please don't talk about punishing my waist, all this eating with the holidays is punishing enough. Besides that what you said makes no sense at all. You must have learned that from Alex Jones too!

  • That is a funny typing error.

  • Corporations have a history of increasing profits by cheap but unsafe & polluting methods of waste disposal.

  • These methods can be exposed and their customers may freely reject these guys.

    Ever heard of a boycott?

  • Yeah. good theory. Actually, it's government regulations & inspectors that are the front line in stopping corporations from polluting.

    Without those mechanisms the corporations would simply deny the polluting & blanket the public with propaganda "proving" they are not polluting.

  • We have not had a free market since 1913.

    Our prblems stem from the centralization of power

  • That is a sweeping statement right-wingers apply to every issue. It's largely meaningless.

  • tTriteness does not detracty from the veracity of the statement.

  • Your problems are far more systemic than the centralization of power. They range from free trade agreements & income tax system that that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas unless American workers accept third world wages, to a partisan special interest money driven political system, to a duplication of govt.t bureaucracies from 52 small states instead of fewer large ones, to going from being the the only world oil producer & exporter of oil to a nation dependent on oil imports etc.

  • Most of these problems stem from cenralization of power.

    The fewer hands that steer th ship the more likely we are to encounter stupid boatmen.

  • The more hands that steer the ship the more erratic the direction, & the more stupid boatmen.

  • I treid to tie in Plato with my earlier comment and it did not work out.

    The more bopatmen the less the people will be affected by any one mans decision considering every boatmen will have his own boat in a libertarian syatem.

  • And the more politicians at the trough.

  • And the more duplication of gov't bureaucracies.

  • Bureacracies come from government. The people will never set up some thing that will cost them so much more money than they would spend without a bureacracy.

  • Bureacracies come from government.

    If government is not present then were will the bureacracy come from?

  • So why defend duplication of so many state bureaucracies?

  • I do not.

    You can have government withouit Bureaucrats. Of course you will need some clerks and record keepers. But nothing like what we have on the nationl level.

  • The politicians on the national level are elected at the state level. Less elected at the state levels, the less in the national capital.

  • The amount of persons in the building have nothing to do with the massive bureacracies we have. Most of those guys are p[art of the regulatory agencies with all that red-tape paperwork.

  • The lack of adequate regulatory & inspection departments led to the deaths of many Americans from tainted food & toys from China.

    The lack of adequate regulations have permitted credit card companies to abuse clients.

    Just to name a couple of examples. No one is for more regulation for it's own sake. Common sense regulations make common sense.

  • If our government were bnot in bed witht he commies and did not give china MFN status we would not be bying their second rate shit.

  • Hey, the Bush government kept borrowing money from China just so he could do things like give tax cuts to the rich.

  • Yes he did. That traitor!

  • The trade deficit with China and the lack of import regulations & inspections have nothing to do with any far-fetched theory of "our gov.t being in bed with the commies". It occurred because corporations wanted access to cheap overseas labor and " free trade" agreements were their way of getting those. They said it was necessary to compete on the global market, yet the consequences were that jobs went overseas & balance of trade went heavily against the U.S.

  • When a government gives another government most-favored -natuion tsatus, it is quite obvious that the two governments are, at some level, in league with one another.

  • The free trade agreements don't stop with China.

    Also, the government agenda was driven by the corporate campaign contributions & lobbying. Has nothing to do with government's "getting in bed with each other."

  • If government is not present where will bureaucracies come from?

    I don't know, why don't you ask those who have ever had to fight an insurance company for payment of a claim.

  • Here's another problem: "The U.S. has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation, & it continues to grow. Prominent economists incl'd Alan Greenspan warned that the widening U.S. rich-poor gap is a prob. that could undermine and destabilize the U.S. economy and standard of living stating: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US pop. has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself."

  • Aln greenspan is a part of the problem.

    The fed is what destabilizes our economy by printing fiat currency.

  • Doesn't address the problem of the rich poor gap.

  • It doesIf inflation is stopped and people are allowed to keeo their earnings. Then personal frugality become the leading factor.

  • Obama eliminates the tax cuts for the rich and transfers those tax cuts to the middle class. You disagree with that?

    Also a basic economic principle is the "multiplier effect" which is that that an additional $ of income in the hands of the middle or lower class stimulates demand & therefor the economy more than an additional $ of income the hands of the rich. As for personal frugality I'm all for it. Still doesn't address all the other systemic problems in the U.S.

  • all our prayers answered perhaps we do not get what we want. Repubs had hate wich the lord disapproves, He answers with a passing healthcare bill. the dems perhaps permissive gets watered down bill, our lord speaks in mysterious ways sending a message perhaps to work together & have a decent health plan. no to vote no Lazy senate love your neighbor ask the senate to work together saving baby's no matter a age gods children a 2 yr old dieing of cancer do to lack of healthcare. forgive us i pray.

  • Ron Paul's solution:

    Do nothing and rely on the free enterprise system to eventually solve all the problems.

    Thanks for coming out Ron.

    Don't call us, we'll call you.

  • free enterprise creates competition which encourages quality to go up and prices go down. government are too stupid to create a fair efficient health service.

  • Comment removed

  • To a point. Nothing will change the fact that a myriad of insurance companies represents an enormous duplication of bureaucracies and accounts for the fact that about 1/3 of U.S h.c. $ go to unnecessary administrative work. It also won't change to fact that insurance co.'s will continue to divert h.c. $ to huge CEO salaries, advertising departments & media, political campaign contributions & lobbying.

  • Also, the public option was not a h.c. care system, like the GOP tried to label it for propaganda purposes, it was just an optional insur. plan that would have had to operate under the same restrictions & reg.s as any other plan.

    Finally, the h.c. bills do not create a "government health care system, again that just labeling the GOP uses for propaganda purposes. Under either bill the private doctors & hospitals would still be private & private insurance would still dominate the industry.

  • A public or gov't option would never operate under the same rules as a private plan for 2 reasons(1)since government writes the rules of competition it could easily write the rules in such a way as to give it a competitive advantage over private plans and(2)a government plan has access to virtually unlimited tax revenues which the gov't plan could use to subsidize below market rates,thereby driving their competitors out of business since no business can operate in the red the way a gov't can.

  • A public option would operate however the legislation structures it to operate, not how the propagandists claim it would.

  • I believe that the public option is a stalking horse for what the advocates of this approach really want,a single player plan. The president,the speaker,and Senator Reed are long supporters of such an idea.Public opposition,however, prevents them from openly promoting their preference. The public option lays the ground work for what can be built upon later when the public's attention is elsewhere.Even if I trusted the above trio,which I don't,there are better ways to bring in more competition.

  • Of course you believe that because it's the propaganda that Fox News & the GOP keep repeating. The fact is that this partisan gridlocked political system couldn't even get a robust public option passed. Why would any fool believe that so fundamental & monumental change as a "single payer system" could somehow be "sneaked in" if there were an optional public insurance plan???

  • No. I don't need Fox News to form my opinion of Obama and his cohorts. All I have to do is use my eyes,ears and the faculty which your screen name implies. Virtually every major act of this administration from stimulus to the multiplicity of tzars to the government's majority share of GM has worked to the benefit of governmental expansion. It does not require much of a leap to see thst 3 A number 1 statist will use this opportunity to realize something the left has dreamed of since Truman.

  • Do you think the administration gave bailouts to the auto industry because they wanted "government expansion", or because they wanted to preserve a last bastion of major manufacturing industry & jobs in America.

    if you think Obama chose to bailout the auto industries for government expansion - you are one seriously crazy paranoid.

    So once you try to link everything into one big conspiracy theory you feel comfortable in not having to look at the actual health care bills specifics?

  • Bailouts to the auto industry expands gov't's power because the money comes with strings attached. We give you this & you do this. It's an old trick. Federal aid is one of the ways that the feds have done an end run around the 10 amendment inasmuch as Fed gov't aid has open the door to fed gov't dominance over the states. And federal aid to business will do the same thing to business. It's a back door way to the US being saddled with a european style industrial policy. Obama is sneaky.

  • The same people that complain that there was strings attached to the auto industry bailouts complain that there were not enough strings attached to the bank bailouts.

    Even so, if you believe that the gov.t wanted to bail out the auto industry just because they like "control" and not because they were afraid to lose one of the last bastions of major manufacturing industry & jobs then you are one truly crazy paranoid.

  • If by removing the cost of advertising departments, media propaganda blitzes,profit, multimillion $ CEO salaries & bonuses, corporate jets, and millions of dollars per day going to campaign contributions & lobbying the public option was able to offer comparable insurance at much lower costs why is that something to fear? If the optional public plan didn't provide the breath of service or cost that make it more attractive, the private companies would still be free to compete.

  • Every industry in the world has the things that you refer to (media propaganda,profits,CEO salaries,etc,etc,etc...).,yet they do not have the problems of the health care industry because they work within something of a market system. There is no health care market system. As usual, the government has screwed it up.If you want competition to improve cost and services then get gov't out of the way. I don't trust gov't to run anything certainly something upon which my life will depend.

  • So no government regulations to stop insurance industry practices like dropping coverage if you get really sick, or denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and no interference with pricing seniors out of health care insurance entirely, etc. etc. That's your free market solution?

    Thanks for coming out.

  • The mistake that you make is you assume that not liking your solution means that I don't want reform. I want the sort of reform that give people greater choices and responsibilities. For instance, small busnesses are prevented from joining together to buy insurance,thereby not getting the sort of price deal that only the big companies can get and it's illegal,in many states,to buy insurance across state or national lines. Don't criticize the free market until we get one in healthcare.

  • As for you liking "the sort of reform that give people greater choices & responsibilities": 1) if you want more choices why deny the choice of a publicly administered non-profit insurance plan, & 2) the bills make it clear that those who can afford it have the responsibility of having h.c. insurance.

  • And every country in the world, certainly all civilized advance nations, have a health care system that gives universal access. All except America.

  • I am so uninterested in what other countries do,esp. if their systems involve long lines,no choice in doctors,and pushing old people into hospice care.Besides Europe is in decline. They got more people leaning on the system than are paying for it. A small number of the young supporting a system for an increasing number of old. It's where we are heading.

  • So continue the model of h.c. only for those who can afford it?

    Pretty defeatist attitude.

    Also, you don't really appreciate the advantages of some elements in other systems. For example, why do you suppose the vast majority of Canadians would never trade their h.c. system for the one in the U.S, ?

  • Most canadians rollwed over and allowed their government to disarm them.

  • Yeah, & most Canadians now want repeal of he gun registry. However, they have never changed majority support for the Canadian h.c..system over that of the U.S.

    So our allusion to the stricter Canadian gun laws aren't relevant.

  • The difference between us is'nt that you want people to have good care & I don't,it's more fundamental than that. I believe in the concept of spontaneous order of which the market is a part. Most of our desires--the desire for food,love,housing,clothing,ade­quate sex pardners,etc are'nt provided by gov't.These result from 1000s of human actions & interactions. If you get gov't out of our way solutions to healthcare will come thru inovation in the same way that inovation gave us cell phones.

  • Anyone who believes that the free market will solve everything is as dumb as anyone who believes that the gov.t will solve everything.

    I believe that universal h.c. coverage and ending insur. co. abuses is something that the gov.t will have to step into the breech to accomplish. i put universal h.c. in the same boat as police and military as specific areas where gov.t can be of great use.

  • My position is'nt that the market can do everything.There are 1or 2 things for which we probably need gov't--police,the military,the courts & foreign policy. I think that everything else can probably be better handled by the free market.Many of my fellow libertarians don't even think we need gov't for the above things,but I have'nt yet embraced anarchism. Although,David Friedman in his"Machinery of Freedom" & Murray Rothbard in his "For a New Liberty"make a good case for anarchism. Check it out.

  • So pinpoint the criteria that led you to think we need gov.t to provide police & military, then se whether those apply to h.c.

    Of course a health care system is possible w/o gov.t. , but do we need gov.t if we are going to have "universal access' to h.c. regardless of income? Also is it an empirical fact that a single payer system delivers h.c. financing (not health care but health care financing & insurance) more cost effectively?

  • My primary problem with anarchism is I fear that absent gov't society will be composed of competiting security firms,representing different clients which seems to me to be a recipe for civil war. I don't like the gov't solution. Giving gov't a monopoly on the use of legal force is making a deal with the devil & I'm certainly not going to give that devil charge of my health & wellness as well.Government is the most dangerous institution ever devised. It should only be used sparingly,if at all.

  • Even Canada, with universal h.c. financing (a public option on steroids) stall has a healthy private h.c. insurance industry,

  • I don't know if you're right about Canada. I'll have to look that up. But,even if you are right,so what? We Americans don't need to go that route when a better answer stares us in the face. The answer is freedom. Freedon is our greatest asset. It is the source of our greatness. Liberate people to make their own choices and we.without the help of politicians,will solve the healthcare problem. Unfortunately,we have a leadership that don't get the whole freedom thing and think it a bit of a bother.

  • Nothing in the h.c. reform bills would make the American system like that of Canada's, no matter now hard the GOP propaganda tries to suggest that it would.

    Also, have you considered the additional freedoms h.c. reform has the potential of delivering? The freedom to change jobs or quit and start your own business without worrying about h.c. coverage for examples.

  • As for making your own choice, what about people who can afford h.c. insur. but chose not to buy it. If they get sick or injured they end up in emergency wards, the most expensive form of h.c. delivery, all paid for by taxpayers & policy holders. What about the personal responsibility to buy h.c. insur. if you can afford it?

    If you are for choice why are you adamant about denying people the choice of a public option?

  • Comment removed

  • The free market puts the emphasis on the individual. You can be greedy or charitable. Your choice.

    Btw free means not being forced to do what you do not want to do. Every human inherently wants his freedom.

  • Comment removed

  • How can the wealthy prey on me if I refuse to do trade with him?

    Only with a government enforced monopoly can he prey upon me.

  • Comment removed

  • @amsterdam78 At any time the workers could quit their jobs.

    Unless they are in a socialist state that will not let them choose where they work.

  • Comment removed

  • History shows me your error.

    In communist china their are huge slave camps.

    Soviet russia had them as well.

    Communal living has always lowered th standard of living.

    Read 1984 by Orwell.

  • Comment removed

  • BULL SHIT!

    Orwell was a part of BBC'S censorship board and then got pissed at what he saw.

  • Comment removed

  • @amsterdam78 I said bullshit to the part about no gulags/slave camps.

    Orwell did start as a collectivist, but changed his mind when he saw the results.

  • Comment removed

  • Read The gulag Archipelago by Solzehnistsen(spelling?)

    I will admit our prison system is fucked up.

    But at ;eat we still have the right to a trial here although we are steadily losing that right.

  • Comment removed

  • Yea he had an axe to grind.

    I would be pissed to if my government did what soviet russia did.

  • Comment removed

  • The fact still remains unchanged that communism kills liberty.

    The price of socialism is freedom and that is one price I will not pay.

    Give me liberty or give me death.

  • Comment removed

  • @amsterdam78 How can there be liberty in a system of governmental control?

    Name me one communist state that has ever not trampelled the rights of the people.

    Twas Jefferson who said that the history of fredom is the limitaion of governmental power.

  • Comment removed

  • And that is why all those cubans keep getting into nrafts and paddle over to florida.

  • Comment removed

  • I love how you refer to brave freedom loving cubans as rubbish.

    Tell you what, why don't you expatriate yourself and go become a cuban comrade.

    After a few years, give me a ring and tell me how you like it.

    It is a win-win. You get your collectivist regime. I get you out of my country.

  • Comment removed

  • Were you joking in the "re-education facility" comment?

    If not then know this. I will take a bullet before I allow them to take my freedoms.

  • Comment removed

  • You will re-educate me like the chinese do huh?

    Aproxx. 30 days of sleep deprivation and electroshock thrapy to re-hardwire my brain.

    Yea, through police state big brother watching you, all resisters will be dealt with.

    They will then become unpersons.

    Fuck all that shit

  • Rich Bankers created communism. Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin.

  • @queerbuzz Communism and Democracy used Capitalism, Capitalism isn't a one sided coin.

  • amsterdam, So where did you get your brainwashing? Where was your re-education facility? Does the chip in your brain get updated every day? What Borg number are you? 4 of 10? You must be a complete idiot to want other people to control you.

  • Comment removed

  • ah41542 raised an interesting point.

    How often do you get your chip serviced?

  • amsterdam, So what happens when the Chair of the socialist party decides that you aren't good enough for them? You will likely be obsolete and discarded as you want to discard us. Now that is Communism at its finest. Get out of our country you communist bastard. Your ideology is not welcome here and will be put down.

  • Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Remember Super Rich Bankers created communism.

  • amsterdam, Ok my little Communist, I tried to call the Socialist Party of Fl. I got a voice mail. It wasn't even identified as such. Sounded like a regular home voice mail. Real organized. Too ashamed to talk to Americans? Put yourself out there. Either say you are not Darius Engel(sp) or I am going to see what they think about your statements, which are now public. Don't bother to discard, I have them saved. Let's see how important you are when you become a liability. Need some re-ed?

  • Comment removed

  • I am amsterdam 78. I love the government. I like to get reamed in the ass by the secret police.

    I love my gulag. Home sweet home!

  • What are you,13?

  • That was what I refer to as ridicule. It works well to get people back into a conversation that they may have decided to leave

  • amsterdam, Well then, I am looking at your national website. Can you point me to where Libertarians will be re-educated or deported? Just break it down for me so I can call the National Organization directly and talk to the head Borg. What, you recognize Christmas? How American of you.

  • amsterdam, you don't care about my opinions huh? Well your national site states "...places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society...." How is re-education and deportation in line with that statement? I think your chip is malfunctioning. Don't worry, I'm not leaving you a message, I'm going straight to Andrea Pason - if she has a phone!

  • So Amsterdam Darius Engel, Admit that is your name!!! Otherwise you are a shame to your party. Go hide like your party does without a real phone. I guess you have no support. 20 strong and growing? Admit who you are. You were very proud to tell us you are the mighty and powerful Vice Chair. I suppose that makes you better than other socialists doesn't it? No wait, that is not what socialists believe is it? Admit who you are or hide in disgrace.

  • @ah41542

    20 strong and growing!

    More like 5 strong and shrinking!

  • He's probably indoctrinating his/her children. Maybe they will have a brain. Glad to see he went back under the commie bush in humiliation.

  • I am surprised someone would actually mate with that thing!

    When do you think we will start to see the bad effects of the healthcare bill?

  • As soon as they pass it. Part of the funding is linked with the crap in the stimulus bill. How nice. Almost like it was planned. One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with health.

  • It was planned. It has everything to do with control.

    How long until we get mandatory vaccinations?

  • This from a neo-fascist libertarian

  • Fascism has nothing to do with liberty or lower governmental control.

    Fascism and communism both centralize power and only differ in how they gain their power.

    Fascism uses nationalism and racism while communism uses forceful revolution.