It’s popular in some quarters to bash the Religious Right eight ways to Sunday. But I maintained for years that the Christian part of the Christian Right was the one part of the GOP that could save it.
That’s the sort of thing that gives me hope. Out there in the cultural right, there are those who believe (however confusedly) in communitarian, Christic values rather than hyper-individualism. Let’s hope that flame is fanned, & the Chuck Norrises of the USA aren’t “educated” away from it by “wiser heads” in the Religious Right.
Of course, given the knee-jerk Libertarian bent of this board, most of you will take it as just more evidence of his idiocy.
Well, first of all, I think the whole article is intended to be his attempt at being a humorist.
Secondly, I had the impression that his tagging of Gates and Buffet to pick up the tab was intended to be read as punishing them for not being WND-acceptably doctrinaire in their economic and political outlooks.
Personally, I don’t think there’s a stance on socialized medicine there, at all, just a shout-out to a “topical” issue that is only coincidentally “socialized medicine.”
It’s formulaic “humor” from someone who has no real grasp of satire, directed at an audience that also has not demonstrated a real grasp of satire.
What makes you think we give any weight to his opinons? Are you incapable of distinguishing between a socially conservative, fiscally liberal authoritarian like Chuck Norris and a socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian?
No, I meant you would say what you just said. Chuck is Christian-Right & authoritarian, therefore to the Libertarians on this board, he’s just wrong down the line.
So while I as a social democrat see this as hope for the Christian Right (depending on what he really thinks), you lot will see it as more socialist-medieval antirational horror on the level of Cthulhu.
To be clear: it’s not that I think the USA should really write a writ of attainder on Buffet & Gates & make them fund social programs; it’s that I would like to see a tax (even a flat tax) for medical care as a common good, & this would mean that its fund would be as much funded by them as their incomes are part of the GDP (which is, what, 5% or something).
Unless I miss my guess, I think friend FG was attempting what is known in some circles as a “joke” - a jape, a jest, a bit of tomfoolery. There are Shirley mathtards amongst us, and I stand in the front ranks of the afflicted, but I don’t see his name on our list.
