Limbaugh: "Hitler, Lenin, Stalin were all men of the left"

[Scylla]

@BrainGlutton

Again, why has what you fear not come to pass in Canada, the UK, all the EU countries, etc., etc.?

Not really a valid argument. If you hit on 18 and get 3 that doesn’t make it a wise move.

I think that socialization opens the door to authoritarianism. Sometimes people leave their doors unlocked and don’t get robbed right away.

Still, there’s a valid economic reason why they can do it, and we can’t. We provide a market, handle the embedded R&D costs, etc from which socialized healthcare nations benefit.

[cosmosdan]

@Plan_B

You should.

Well I will when you or Rush or anyone else can show me why it is relevant. I won’t hold my breath.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

“All parties ran in those days promising universal health care” Becomes “vitrually all.” Becomes “virtually all European nations have it now.”

Could you backpedal any faster?

I think one of your heads is telling you: “Yeah that will work, we will not deal with his cites”.

@Scylla

Deliberate misrepresentation and exaggerations detract from your arguments, and cement the skeptical cynicism with which I regard your subsequent assertions.

Like I said, I laugh at that bullshit.

Too late, I laughed before at your pathetic efforts at ignoring cites.

@Scylla

No. You have not really established that. It does not follow from my assertion that I do not think it wise to give the government the degree of control and interest in our day to day lives that socialized healthcare gives it.

What you have established though is a pattern of posting half-truths and misrepresentations.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11353708&postcount=458

Sure, where is the video showing that you are correct regarding Pelosi?

[cosmosdan]

@GIGObuster

Well, not quite.

I have to tell you that I was born in Central America. Military men that are in cahoots with rich elites are still plotting takeovers in Latin America, and recently in Honduras they are trying to stop all the progress gained in the last 20 years. Sure, they put a civilian in charge after the coup, but almost no one was fooled. The military is calling the shots.

I meant it’s irrelevant to the health care debate going on in America right now, or our current admin in general.

[mswas]

Most Right-Wingers consider Hitler a lefty. shrugs It’s just nonsense propaganda designed to make them feel better about themselves.

[Scylla]

@GIGObuster

Looking at YouTube; so far, even on the the videos** from right wingers** that claim that Pelosi said that, shows her just saying “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.”

Implying they were… fans of ancient native american art?
I suppose that if she said they were carrying swastikas, burning books, and exterminating jews you would still argue that she wasn’t calling them Nazis.

Further cement in the brickwork of my cynical skepticism regarding your statements and arguments.

[cosmosdan]

@Scylla

Not really. He played the soundbites. I heard it with my own ears.

You shouldn’t have any trouble finding it so I can hear it and you can show me I’m mistaken. I noticed you failed in that simple task.

The problem for you is I think I’ve already heard it. It’s what Plan B linked to isn’t it? Yeah, I heard that and already called bullshit. She **did not **refer to any protesters as Nazi’s. If that’s what you heard then you know I’m correct.

[Scylla]

@mswas

Most Right-Wingers consider Hitler a lefty. shrugs It’s just nonsense propaganda designed to make them feel better about themselves.

Not really. More like an opportunistic totalitarian. He hijacked whatever he could use. His party was the National Socialist Party, and he did hijack a leftish platform. As did Stalin.

Any time the government takes greater control and involvement in the day to day working of its citizen’s lives you increase the vulnerability to authoritarianism.

The maximization of personal freedoms espoused by the founding fathers, while often an inneficient pain in the ass, is a strong innoculation against such.

[Scylla]

@cosmosdan

The problem for you is I think I’ve already heard it. It’s what Plan B linked to isn’t it? Yeah, I heard that and already called bullshit. She **did not **refer to any protesters as Nazi’s. If that’s what you heard then you know I’m correct.

I suppose you could make that argument if you were to abandon all rationality.

[cosmosdan]

@Scylla

Implying they were… fans of ancient native american art?
I suppose that if she said they were carrying swastikas, burning books, and exterminating jews you would still argue that she wasn’t calling them Nazis.

Further cement in the brickwork of my cynical skepticism regarding your statements and arguments.

What disingenuous crap. She was commenting on **what they were carrying **to a health care debate not about them personally. The facts are , some protesters were carrying swastikas indicating Obama and his UHC were somehow Nazi like. Her meaning is plain for anyone with a basic honest grasp of English. Does that exclude you?

[mswas]

@Scylla

Not really. More like an opportunistic totalitarian. He hijacked whatever he could use. His party was the National Socialist Party, and he did hijack a leftish platform. As did Stalin.

Any time the government takes greater control and involvement in the day to day working of its citizen’s lives you increase the vulnerability to authoritarianism.

The maximization of personal freedoms espoused by the founding fathers, while often an inneficient pain in the ass, is a strong innoculation against such.

It just shows how utterly stupid trying to divide political viewpoints into left/right categories is. We try so hard to forcefit things into these categories when it just doesn’t work.

Sure it was a Socialist movement, but it was also a Nationalist one that took hold of an idea of Germanic ethnic identity, which is generally the provenance of the right wing.

It’s masturbatory pure and simple.

“My opponents are like Hitler.”

Satan was a leftist. :rolleyes:

[Scylla]

@mswas

It just shows how utterly stupid trying to divide political viewpoints into left/right categories is. We try so hard to forcefit things into these categories when it just doesn’t work.

Sure it was a Socialist movement, but it was also a Nationalist one that took hold of an idea of Germanic ethnic identity, which is generally the provenance of the right wing.

It’s masturbatory pure and simple.

“My opponents are like Hitler.”

I agree with what you just said.

Satan was a leftist. :rolleyes:

From a Miltonian standpoint, that’s rather accurate.

[cosmosdan]

@Scylla

I suppose you could make that argument if you were to abandon all rationality.

That’s exactly what you’ve done. Enough of the sparring. Put up the evidence or drop it. I don’t expect you to admit you and Rush are dead wrong. Your complete lack of any ability to back up your claim will do.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

Not really a valid argument. If you hit on 18 and get 3 that doesn’t make it a wise move.

I think that socialization opens the door to authoritarianism. Sometimes people leave their doors unlocked and don’t get robbed right away.

Still, there’s a valid economic reason why they can do it, and we can’t. We provide a market, handle the embedded R&D costs, etc from which socialized healthcare nations benefit.

Bull, the Taiwanese are finding that being free of bankruptcies from health care costs and other injustices is worth the price.

And it is cheaper too.

As for the idea that socialized health care nations benefit from us, I do not think that is the whole truth:

Foreign free riders and the high price of US medicines

A longer citation from that seems to be here:
http://journal.shouxi.net/html/qikan/yykxzh/ygyxzz/20061033110/20080831183324808_208872.html

1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 40E Laurel Road, Stratford, NJ 08084, USA,
2 School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto ON, Canada

The US government, backed by the pharmaceutical industry, wants to convince Americans that they're paying more for drugs because they're contributing more than their fair share of the costs of research and development. Not so, argue two researchers who have looked at the evidence.

Introduction

The United States government is engaged in a campaign to characterise other industrialised countries as free riding on high US pharmaceutical prices and innovation in new drugs.1 This campaign is based on the argument that lower prices imposed by price controls in other affluent countries do not pay for research and development costs, so that Americans have to pay the research costs through higher prices in order to keep supplying the world with new drugs.1 2 Supporters of the campaign have characterised the situation as a foreign rip-off.3 We can find no evidence to support these and related claims, and we present evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, we explain why the claims themselves contradict the economic nature of the pharmaceutical industry.

Origins of the campaign

The campaign, strongly backed by the pharmaceutical industry, seems to have started in the late 1990s as a response to a grass roots movement started by senior citizens against the high prices of essential prescription drugs.4 This issue was the most prominent one for both parties in the 2000 elections and has since been fuelled by a series of independent reports documenting that US drug prices are much higher than those in other affluent countries.5-7 The idea that other countries are exploiting the US has led to a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and was behind a Department of Commerce report that strongly advocated that other developed countries raise prices on patented medicines.8 But are higher prices really necessary

The free rider myth

We can find no convincing evidence to support the view that the lower prices in affluent countries outside the United States do not pay for research and development costs. The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme documents that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest proportionately more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US. Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust.9 10

Companies in other countries also fully recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US. For example, in Canada the 35 companies that are members of the brand name industry association report that income from domestic sales is, on average, about 10 times greater than research and development costs.11 They have profits higher than makers of computer equipment and telecommunications carriers12 despite prices being about 40% lower than in the US.11

Lower prices do not lead to less research

Mark McClellan, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, maintained that low prices are "slowing the process of drug development worldwide."1 A corollary to this claim is that drug companies are shutting down their European operations because prices are too low and moving to the US. This assertion is contradicted by the industry's data. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations reported that, between 1990 and 2003, its members increased their research and development investments in Europe by 2.6-fold and in the US by fourfold.13 The federation concluded that this differential was due to multiple factors, such as the economic and regulatory framework, the science base, the investment conditions, and societal attitudes towards new technologies.

On several measures, other developed countries spend proportionately as much as the US on research and development. The table presents the spending on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product for eight developed countries.14 The US is about at the median. Prices in the countries with better ratios than the US were 31-36% less than those in the US.15 Pharmaceutical companies commit as large a percentage of sales to research and development in Europe as in the US, about 19% on average over the past seven years.9 13 This little reported fact contradicts the widely circulated claims that European countries deliberately ignore research and development costs in calculating prices.1

Ratio of pharmaceutical spending on research and development to gross domestic product and ratio of drug prices to US prices, 200012 15

Europe no less innovative than the US

Contrary to claims of American dominance, pharmaceutical research and development in the US has not produced more than its proportionate share of new molecular entities. The US accounts for just under 48% of world sales and spent 49% of the global total on research and development to discover 45% of the new molecular entities that were launched on the world market in 2003, less than its proportionate share. European countries account for 28% of world sales, 36% of total research and development spending, and 32% of new molecular entities, more than its proportionate share.13

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

I suppose you could make that argument if you were to abandon all rationality.

@cosmosdan

What disingenuous crap. She was commenting on **what they were carrying **to a health care debate not about them personally. The facts are , some protesters were carrying swastikas indicating Obama and his UHC were somehow Nazi like. Her meaning is plain for anyone with a basic honest grasp of English. Does that exclude you?

What is even sadder is that English is my second language and even I can see that.
Maybe he is expecting that we will blame one of his heads for his dishonesty.

[Scylla]

@cosmosdan

What disingenuous crap. She was commenting on **what they were carrying **to a health care debate not about them personally. The facts are , some protesters were carrying swastikas indicating Obama and his UHC were somehow Nazi like. Her meaning is plain for anyone with a basic honest grasp of English. Does that exclude you?

Ahhh, Semantics. But, she didn’t say that. She said they were carrying swastikas.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas,” That creates an image of the protesters.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas to remind people of the tragedies of the holocaust” that gives almost the opposite image.
One lies by ommision in the former case.

[AHunter3]

[picking up marbles {such as they are} and scowling]
Yeah, fine. Just argue against the perspectives you are already prepared to confront. Sharpen your wits and refine your arguments against the adversaries you take seriously.
[/marbles]

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

Ahhh, Semantics. But, she didn’t say that. She said they were carrying swastikas.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas,” That creates an image of the protesters.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas to remind people of the tragedies of the holocaust” that gives almost the opposite image.
One lies by ommision in the former case.

Lets see the video from the cite:

- YouTube

Clearly the signs with the swastikas said “no to fascism” and “no Nazis”; however, there was no mention of the holocaust, but if that was the intention, it was IMHO something that was still bad. I can’t believe that there are people willing to defend the idiotic behavior of accusing the democrats of being Nazis or going to plan a Holocaust.

Pelosi also said “you be the judge” Well, one can say that there is something being omitted, but that something does not make it better for the protesters.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@cosmosdan

Himmler did something similar.

I’ve been wading through this whole thread hoping someone would point out that, in a very fundamental way, Hitler was a righty.

[cosmosdan]

@Scylla

Ahhh, Semantics. But, she didn’t say that. She said they were carrying swastikas.

Well yah! That what I just said. She was commenting on what they were carrying. You’ll note that those pointing out that many Nazi Hitler references were made about Bush are not calling the protesters carrying those sign Nazis.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas,” That creates an image of the protesters.

and image of them carrying swastikas and that is all. It does not speak at all of their intent or their character. The question of why they are carrying them is not addressed. It’s obvious from the clip that what Pelosi was talking about was the question of sincere protest or manufactured sponsored protest.

If I say “There were demonstrators carrying swastikas to remind people of the tragedies of the holocaust” that gives almost the opposite image.

No, it includes intent. The other does not, one way or the other. As I just pointed out. Nobody pointing out that protesters carried swastikas to protest Bush are intending to call the protesters Nazis and you know it.

This isn’t semantics. It’s about a reasonable interpretation of the English language vs an obviously disingenuous one. Your interpretation is not reasonable. It’s political bullshit and pathetically transparent.