Document exposes what the RNC really thinks of its donors, admits to using "fear."

[Princhester]

@Frank

Yes, I also know Catholics, as in: every member of my family that is still religious. If you do not realize that the Catholic Church, in general, even in the U.S., has not grown more conservative in the last 30 years, you are sadly mistaken. As a matter of fact, only two years after John Paul II’s election in 1978, he forced the likes of Fr. Drinan, a liberal Democrat Jesuit priest and Congressman, to withdraw from electoral politics.

This action was general and world-wide, and was primarily aimed at Latin American priests who were politically engaged on the liberal side.

You’re seriously behind the times. Sorry.

There is a massive leap between **'luci’s **post under reply and your first sentence, on the one hand, and the rest of your post on the other. Westerners from a Catholic cultural background (no doubt like his friends) are going in one direction while the church itself is going in another. **'luci’s **post and yours are not actually dissonant.

[kaylasdad99]

@elucidator

Despite abundant negative images, the Jesuits are, to the astonishment of many, central to many positive programs. Which nobody ever expects.

I think you’re thinking of the Dominicans, here.

[Yookeroo]

@Bricker

Here are my postulates: we start from the proposition that the free market is the most efficient answer to all issues.

One of the dumbest things I’ve read recently.

@DianaG

What’s this “we” shit, kemosabe? Prove to me that the free market is the most efficient answer to all issues.

The free market is almost a fetish for conservatives nowadays.

[Voyager]

@Hirka_T_Bawa

I’m a registered Republican*, and I’ve received in the mail from the national party “surveys” that are disguised fear mongering fund raising requests. All of the questions on this “survey” are so loaded, that I laughed at them, then threw them away. Honestly, this is nothing new from the national Republican party.

I’m more of a libertarian in my beliefs then anything, and I’ve gotten sick of the way the Republican party has been operating in recent times. They are honestly driving people like me away with this BS. I voted for the Libertarian candidate on the last presidential election, and if they keep up, I’ll probably never vote for a Republican for national office again. National politics has become just a vote of the lesser of two evils!
*as in literally, my state (Georgia) requires you to register for a party to vote in their primary.

I was a registered Republican for 30 years. I voted against Shrub in 2000 because it was clear he was an incompetent twerp (and how right I was) and finally left the party in 2002. Let me assure you, it felt good.

[Bricker]

@mhendo

Almost, but i would take it further.

Superb post.

It also raises points touched on (less eloquently) by other posters in the thread.

I’m not going to answer it.

I would, if you’re interested, move the conversation to GD and answer it there.

Here, I’ll simply say that this thread started as, in essence, a claim that said, “Look how utterly unfounded this Republican argument is!” Having given foundations for it, you now wish to argue the strength of those foundations. You’re right, in other words, when you say that the axioms I laid out are themselves far from uncontroversial. They are indeed fodder for debate. But they certainly suffice to show that there is a bare, base rationale for the approach, which is the only burden I should have to carry here.

This reminds me of an observation Richard Feynman, the physicist, made about mathematicians:

 At the Princeton  graduate school, the physics department and the math department shared  a  common lounge, and every day at four o'clock we  would have  tea.  It  was a  way of  relaxing  in the  afternoon, in  addition  to imitating  an  English  college.  People  would sit  around  playing  Go, or discussing theorems. In those days topology was the big thing.

I still remember a guy sitting on the couch, thinking very hard, and another guy standing in front of him, saying, “And therefore such-and-such is true.”

“Why is that?” the guy on the couch asks.

“It’s trivial! It’s trivial!” the standing guy says, and he rapidly reels off a series of logical steps: “First you assume thus-and-so, then we have Kerchoff’s this-and-that; then there’s Waffenstoffer’s Theorem, and we substitute this and construct that. Now you put the vector which goes around here and then thus-and-so…” The guy on the couch is struggling to understand all this stuff, which goes on at high speed for about fifteen minutes!

Finally the standing guy comes out the other end, and the guy on the couch says, “Yeah, yeah. It’s trivial.”

We physicists were laughing, trying to figure them out. We decided that “trivial” means “proved.” So we joked with the mathematicians: “We have a
new theorem – that mathematicians can prove only trivial theorems, because every theorem that’s proved is trivial.”

Much like those mathematicians, you’re taking the end of a complex debate as a given to assume not only the truth of your (presumably) winning proposition, but also its triviality, its obviousness. My point here was not to prove the truth of my case: it was to rebut the idea that the case is so obvious, so trivial, that the mere mention of the opposite argument is absurd.

[Gadarene]

Here, I’ll simply say that this thread started as, in essence, a claim that said, “Look how utterly unfounded this Republican argument is!”

That’s not how this thread started. That’s how your hijack started. Reread the OP.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

My point here was not to prove the truth of my case: it was to rebut the idea that the case is so obvious, so trivial, that the mere mention of the opposite argument is absurd.

If that really was your purpose, which, given your love of pettifoggery, is doubtful, all you’ve provided by way of an alternative viewpoint is “no u”.

Which, actually, is all there is to the anti-UHC position, other than the fearmongering which was the subject of the OP.

[Muffin]

The anti-UHC argument is either that the USA is exceptional when compared to the first world nations, and/or that the success of UHC in the other first world nations is not true.

[MeanOldLady]

@Bricker

Here, I’ll simply say that this thread started as, in essence, a claim that said, “Look how utterly unfounded this Republican argument is!”

Not just that it’s unfounded, but that they seem to acknowledge such, and rely on “visceral” reactions and “peer-pressure” in order to fund-raise and collect votes. This is precisely what libruls have been frustrated by for many years now: the GOP insistence upon using fear to manipulate people, and their laughable denial of the obvious fact that they’re doing this. If there is a legitimate reason to resist health care reform, what is it? Stop using the “S” word in an ominous tone, stop with the Hitler pictures, stop with the exaggerated stories about people in Canada dying on the ER floor because of Communism, stop tea bagging for five minutes, and tell me why our current system is the best possible option. When someone explains that to me, I will die of shock.

Is it really the taxes?

[Algher]

@Jackmannii

Sowing FUD is the basic strategy behind every mailing I’ve ever received from Planned Parenthood.

Some targets of marketing will buy into this sort of stuff completely; most of us (of whatever political stripe) take it with many grains of salt.

Yep - In this week’s mail and email, I have dire predictions of doom and gloom from:

The NRA (funny, since they are winning at the Supreme Court level right now)
Sierra Club
Obama (we donated, so we are on the perpetual email list)
The Republicans (where I am forced to register to vote in CA primaries)
My alma mater
My kids public elementary school
The prospective private school for my older kid (psst - first admit him, THEN ask me to donate to the school ya idiots).

Fear drives donations and action. It rallies the troops. It works for the masses, and the masses drive a lot.

[Algher]

@ElvisL1ves

If that really was your purpose, which, given your love of pettifoggery, is doubtful, all you’ve provided by way of an alternative viewpoint is “no u”.

Which, actually, is all there is to the anti-UHC position, other than the fearmongering which was the subject of the OP.

Nonsense - the anti-UHC arguement for the MASSES is fear of socialistic government takeover of health care. That plays well and can be explained in a few sentences or soundbites. FUD sells, sells well, and is used by both parties.

The anti-UHC arguments for people who read and understand is much deeper, and gets into questions about physician reimbursement, patient choice, defensive medicine, separation of the patient from cost, ties to employment, rationing, costs of innovation, and many others.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Algher

The anti-UHC arguments for people who read and understand is much deeper, and gets into questions about physician reimbursement, patient choice, defensive medicine, separation of the patient from cost, ties to employment, rationing, costs of innovation, and many others.

Those are behind the pro-UHC arguments.

[Bricker]

@Gadarene

That’s not how this thread started. That’s how your hijack started. Reread the OP.

The same OP that included this:

To me, the most significant thing is that the RNC is basically admitting that its base is a bunch of reactionary morons who are easily manipulated by fear, and by words like “Socialism” I wonder if they’ll be smart enough to even know that they’ve been insulted, though.

What does this mean? Certainly it suggests that using “socialism” as a word that might fairly describe the direction of UHC is absolutely absurd; not just a losing argument but one too stupid to be uttered.

[Bricker]

@MeanOldLady

Not just that it’s unfounded, but that they seem to acknowledge such, and rely on “visceral” reactions and “peer-pressure” in order to fund-raise and collect votes. This is precisely what libruls have been frustrated by for many years now: the GOP insistence upon using fear to manipulate people, and their laughable denial of the obvious fact that they’re doing this. If there is a legitimate reason to resist health care reform, what is it? Stop using the “S” word in an ominous tone, stop with the Hitler pictures, stop with the exaggerated stories about people in Canada dying on the ER floor because of Communism, stop tea bagging for five minutes, and tell me why our current system is the best possible option. When someone explains that to me, I will die of shock.

Is it really the taxes?

No. It’s the idea that health care is a right, an entitlement – that like lawyers for accused criminals, if you can’t afford it, society will provide it for you.

There are other disagreements about the how of UHC that include effects on innovation, effects on the labor pool, rationing standards, and the like, but my objection is more basic: I don’t agree with the premise that if you can’t afford health care, society should agree to provide it for you. Even if society does, the message should be that society doesn’t intend to.

Where do I send the flowers?

[ElvisL1ves]

She asked why that’s better, not if you simply believe so as an article of faith.

Please. :rolleyes:

[MeanOldLady]

@Bricker

The same OP that included this:

What does this mean? Certainly it suggests that using “socialism” as a word that might fairly describe the direction of UHC is absolutely absurd; not just a losing argument but one too stupid to be uttered.

No. It means they want to make the word “socialism” scary, then refer to UHC as socialism, with no further argument. They never seem to answer the big, fat question: “So?”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

The same OP that included this:

What does this mean? Certainly it suggests that using “socialism” as a word that might fairly describe the direction of UHC is absolutely absurd; not just a losing argument but one too stupid to be uttered.

No, using it as a scare word is what’s stupid. Using it as an argument against any kind of health care reform is even more stupid, especially since it will not inolve any government take over of the industry, which is the real definition of socialism. It’s not a word or objection that has any value or meaning in the discussion over how to reform health care other than to scare stupid people into thinking it will turn us into the soviet Union. It’s not an ingenuous or honest objection, it’s just a rhetorical stink bomb.

Morover, the RNC presentation flat out admitted they were using the word simply for scare value. They admitted it’s manipulation and demagoguery, and that they use it because they know their base is “reactionary,” and “visceral,” and can be played like Les Pauls if you use the right words.

[MeanOldLady]

@Bricker

No. It’s the idea that health care is a right, an entitlement – that like lawyers for accused criminals, if you can’t afford it, society will provide it for you.

There are other disagreements about the how of UHC that include effects on innovation, effects on the labor pool, rationing standards, and the like, but my objection is more basic: I don’t agree with the premise that if you can’t afford health care, society should agree to provide it for you. Even if society does, the message should be that society doesn’t intend to.

So… our current health care system is the best possible option because you like the message it sends?

Where do I send the flowers?

I’ll PM you my address. Send bourbon, too.

Edit: I’m purposely not addressing your bullshit about rationing.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

No. It’s the idea that health care is a right, an entitlement – that like lawyers for accused criminals, if you can’t afford it, society will provide it for you.

If the people want to make it a right, then they have the right to make it a right.

[Gfactor]

A debate seems to have broken out here. I’ll move this thread from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator