No offense taken, but you’re wrong. See for yourself if you wish.
The definitions of words change over time. The truth does not.
Scientific facts are what they are and public opinion cannot change them; but words mean what people intend and understand them to mean.
I think the operative word here is probably and for what type of coverage and provided by who - any doctor or only the ones that elect to participate (like an HMO)? Insert best guesses here…
Also, my response was to someone not currently paying for insurance so they are not currently having anything deducted from their wages.
Do you also insist that “gay” means “happy”?
Oh, Lord God, not the Ludwig van Mises site again! Cheese Louise, but I’m sick of hearing about that. Didn’t used to piss me off much, but now I hates Mises to pieces!
Keep that up and someone’s gonna Hanna your Barbera…
More efficiently run.
I’ve got bad news for you: when you’re the only person in America who uses a word a certain way, you’re the one who’s wrong. I have even worse news for you: you may be suffering from a severe handicap if the redefinition of the word “liberal” is the biggest problem you have with the American political system.
No, it doesn’t make her a socialist. HRC, like Bill Clinton, is a centrist. The twenty year shift in the political spectrum has forced democrats to the right. The extreme far right is now considered the center and the left is considered eccentric. Even moderate left views are labeled radical and extreme, so it isn’t surprising that HRC is considered a socialist by the pundits and bloggers, especially when you consider her radical proposals for health care reform. The same conservative crew simply dismissed John Edwards as a nutcase.
I’ll bite.
Which of the two of these advocated the constant airing of government propaganda in public places without any way of turning the damn thing off?
HRC’s position on UHC is not very radical, considering that every Democratic candidate and one Republican candidate have proposed something similar. But I’ll agree with you, unconventional, and even go one further: the Pubbies’ problem is, and always has been, the failure to understand that the Clintons are basically Republicans. Free trade? Dubious military strikes in the Middle East based on bad intelligence? Expansion of the power of the executive branch? Check, check, check.
“Government propaganda” is a bit of a stretch when you’re talking about how long to let babies cry. And do your TVs and radios not come with an off button? I don’t recall the D.C. area being full of telescreens. Has that changed in the last ten years?
Well, you know what they say, “First they forced us to listen to parenting tips, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a parent; And then they forced us to listen to energy efficiency tips, and I didn’t speak up because I liked saving money; And then they came for the Jews…”
I LOLd.
Oh, I agree, Hostile Dialect. HRC’s plan is *not *radical only portrayed as radical.
Someone please explain how:
Isn’t socialist in nature?
Perhaps HRC doesn’t fit the text book definition of Socialist, but perhaps she leans that way?
:rolleyes: We covered this pretty thoroughly on the first page, Maniac.
While I agree that HRC isn’t a socialist (well, she IS a Democrat… 
), if you were just going to declare her not one by fiat why did you put this in GD?? If it’s been ‘covered’ then maybe the thread should be closed?
-XT
I said “on the first page,” not “in the OP.” ManiacMan is merely pounding on an asked-and-answered question; it’s now his turn, if he wishes to keep that line going, to make a case as to why and how the statement in question is
“socialist in nature.”