a href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_70848.html'>Here is a useful discussion about different kinds of health care.
What I'm talking about is usually called 'Universal Single Payer', and is literally the only kind that makes sense. The idea that 'everyone' should have 'insurance' is a nonsensical proposal, although the Democratic front-runners like to pretend otherwise. If everyone has it, it's not insurance. If everyone has to have it, it is more properly called 'a tax'.
I have the same issue with car insurance. If we want to require everyone to pay a hundred dollars a month or so to cover, for others, of the cost of possible accidents, that sounds reasonable. Having private companies do it, however, is inane. (There is actual car insurance, that covers your own car, that people might wish on top of that.)
Do I have proof that the government is secretly breaking the law? Well, actually, reading the government's own statements about this, yeah, I do.
Sorry, but (1) what cruel and unusual punishment? (2) We are in the middle of a war (which oughta count)... or do you think Bush blew up the WTC on 9-11?
Torture is, by definition, cruel. That is what torture is.
But I can't dispute the 'that outta count' constitutional argument. I mean, sure, the founding fathers explicitly wrote 'invasion or rebellion', thus limiting the circumstances to when there were enemy soldiers walking around inside the US, but they probably meant 'war' and that we should be able to pick people up elsewhere and haul them over here.
Oh, and are you accusing me of being an amoral atheist? If so, you are incorrect in both the adjective and the noun.
I'll admit the 'atheist' was a bit of a guess. You a Satanist or something? I don't know much about that. I'm not trying to offend anyone. Kali worshipper? (I'm at a loss as to what religions condone torture.)
I was fairly certain the 'amoral' was dead on, though. I mean, you did suggest torturing people. It seemed a gimme.
Are you 'immoral' instead? Anti-moral? Pro-evil?
I'm afraid you may have a tendency to stereotype.
Sorry if I'm not as 'open minded' as you moral relativists who think that everyone should be allowed to do what they want, no matter what the consequences to society or how much society disapproves of their behavior.
I don't care if it's acceptable in other cultures like Syria and Egypt, I don't care being a torturer is genetic or learned. It's not something that decent folks approve of, and it's not something we expose to the public. Next thing I know you'll be trying to teach torture in public schools to our children. Maybe even torturing them a little as a 'cultural exchange', or at least showing them how to put rubber gloves on.
Of course, I'm against any sort of criminal activity directed against torturers, what they do to each other in private is none of our business. I'm just saying the government shouldn't sanction it, and it certainly shouldn't sponsor it!
Now, would you tell me where in the Bible it says we must allow our enemies to convert us to radical Islam by terror or murder?
I'm fairly certain I just asserted the Bible says we aren't to torture people. I suppose you've got some clever rebuttal about how the Bible also says we aren't to eat cheeseburgers or shave our sideburns or something.
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.
I don't know why you think I, or anyone, is trying to have it 'both ways'. I'm not trying to have it any way at all. I just said that Libertarian policies are deeply unpopular. Reducing social security is a third rail of politics, much less getting rid of it entirely.
However, they've reached the point where they are less unpopular than the Bush-lites running for president. Possibly because people do not actually know the full extent of these policies, and assume they will not be affected personally. (Before you start trying to point out that they can't be deeply unpopular and yet unknown, it is the policies, when you present them to people, are deeply unpopular. And people are unaware this is the Libertarians' or Ron Paul's platform.)
I know Libertarians actually believe what they think, and will probably try to implement it when elected. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting is that the actual useful parts of their platform will fail, (Or be undone next election) and the crappy parts will succeed.
So if libertarians actually had power, no, they would do what they say they would do, what was within their power, according to any honest interpretation of your own words.
Um, I'm fairly certain I didn't say otherwise. In fact, that's exactly what I said. I am confused as to how you are sarcastically agreeing with me. The Libertarians, unlike many of the Republicans and even Democrats, appear to be honest brokers who will try to do what they say. (Ron Paul, certainly.)
Then I said all that actually would be within their power if they won the Presidency was massive deregulation of industry (Or, rather, complete failure to enforce the laws, which is the worse possible way to get rid of law.), and possibly a lowering of taxes. Neither of which is even slightly a good idea idea right now.
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant, as I'm not really saying anyone in the executive branch acted illegally. (Although they actually appear to have done so.) That's a red herring.
I'm saying the telecoms acted illegally. The law explicitly states under what circumstances they can wiretap: Either with a warrant, or the AG's signature asserting that certain conditions are true. Any other conditions, and they are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter if they've got the signature of God Himself.
For most of the wiretapping, they got the AG's signature, although on a different piece of paper, on that state the entire program was legal. (Instead of one for each wiretap asserting it's on non-Americans, as is actually required.) They could have possibly argued in court that they were legal.
But they they operated it with just the president's authorization. We can sit and argue whether or not legally he could order that, I think he can't, not because he's not the AG (I agree that doesn't make a lot of sense.), but simply because the entire setup was in violation of the law in the first place.
However, that doesn't matter one bit with regard to the telecom's violation of the law. You don't get to violate the law because the president writes you a note. If the law says you need X's signature to do Y or it's illegal, you need X's signature, not his boss. Legal requirements do not magically follow up an employment tree.
Even if it was entirely 100% legal for the president to walk into AT&T and wiretap people, or order the NSA to do so, there is an entirely different law that forbids the telecoms from actually participating in that, and the telecoms are not part of the executive branch and have no inherent power to wiretap, or help people wiretap, whatsoever. (And it's actually the telecoms that are doing the wiretapping.)
Not about the money, but about him being "bought and paid for," yes. I know all about the money. But if you think his principles can be bought for that paltry sum, you're more myopic than I thought. Rockefeller simply wouldn't offer immunity if he thought it wasn't the right thing to do, period.
It's not immunity, please don't call it that. (Yes, I do it too, I'll try to stop.) Immunity is what you offer people in exchange for testimony. I actually wouldn't mind that so much.
What he's offering is amnesty. Where no one has to actually explain what is going on, no one has to explain how or why or even when. (There's evidence it started before 9/11, which would instantly render all the dumb AUMF justifications moot.) In fact, it's worse than amnesty, which would merely mean they couldn't be charged with the crime...it's retroactive legalization, which would also stop any lawsuits. Luckily, it appears to be dead in the water at this point.
And, incidentally, I view his write-letter 'objection' to the program as a wimpy ass-covering move. A real Congressman would have immediately called a closed session of Congress and disclosed it all. And dared the Administration to attempt to punish him for it. Instead, he did nothing.
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority. The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004, and, at best, resumed being legal two to three weeks later. (Although there are indications that it lasted a good deal longer than that, too.) But there is a span of time that the program was flatly, indisputably, operated illegal.
This is, of course, assuming that the AG's signature made the problem legal, which it probably didn't, but it at least gave the telecoms some sort of defense. Without it, for that span of time, they are completely and totally fucked in court.
And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.) The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
Yeah, I'm lying about that, because that's really hard to check that his 1999-2004 donations had no telecoms at or over $10,000, whereas his 2001-2006 donations had AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn suddenly show up and donate over $12,000 each, a total of $50,000.
Admittedly, I was wrong about the dates. I should have said '$100 from each in 2004'. (Or 2005, I don't know why they don't break each year out.) Looks like the bribery started sooner than I thought.
I owe you an apology. I assumed you were agreeing much more with the GP than you actually were. Libertarians just annoy me. Actually, normally, they just annoy me, but right now they really piss me off suggesting a 'solution' to the problems that wouldn't work and make things worse by randomly deregulating things. And the circumstances are so dire, I'm afraid the American people might actually listen to them.
So I'm sorry I went off on you, and thanks for not responding in kind.
And I agree 100% with your health care point. We need government run health payment. Hospitals and doctors charge standard rates and bill the government, who pays them. We don't need any insane 'insurance' in there, and, as a bonus, all the stupid 'Is this procedure authorized' is gone. Billing is vastly more simple.
And people don't just wander around getting medical procedures for fun (Despite what people seem to think.) so we don't need a lot of control on it. Just basic fraud protection that the services being reimbursed for actually happened.
I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to do it, I interpret 'general welfare' looser than you, but I'd get behind one if there was.
And I agree about the road/drinking age thing.
What might be interesting is a constitutional amendment that lets a 2/3rd majority of states vote in stuff they want the Feds to fund, and what sort of restrictions they are allowed to put on the funding. This would explicitly only apply to funding, not adding any other powers to the Federal government, with a year-long lead in time for existing stuff like road funding. (And Congress, of course, would still have to then actually pass laws implementing the funding. Maybe they should do that first, actually.)
I don't know, that's just a suggestion I had off the top of my head because I don't like the idea of amending the constitution every time we want the Federal government to do something, and the fact we need something to undo what they're already doing when they attach stupid regulations to it.
Another way to look at this would be a minority veto over Federal spending. If a certain amount of states don't want the funding, or the regulations that come with it, the government cannot actually do it. So 17 states could stand up and say 'We don't want your stupid road money if you're going to make us raise the drinking age', and the government would be forced to remove that restriction or not give anyone money for them.
And, again, it doesn't apply to the Federal government ability to pass laws at all. The states couldn't vote that the government should regulate prostitution, although they could vote that the government should fund medical testing for prostitutes. (Although they would not, of course, actually do that.) Or they could vote that there are government grant to help fight prostitution, which they probably wouldn't do either. (And would still need the actual Federal government to agree to do, anyway.)
Does that make sense? I live in a state where, in 2000, we had two fricking constitutional amendments on the ballot to change the medical benefits of firefighters and police officers, which is just completely stupid. What are we paying the legislature for? Why are we deciding that? Why is that in our constitution? Did this become some sort of direct Democracy when I wasn't looking, where we operate the state government by amending the constitution?
So I'd like that we didn't start that federally, passing a constitutional amendment for every little thing we want the Federal government to help the states with, but I'd also really like there to be some sort of control over that, like you do. Right now, individual states can reject grants, but that just hurts them. It'd be nice if enough of the states rejected one, the government wasn't allowed to offer it at all. (You know, in theory, we don't need a constitutional amendment, or any laws at all, we just need the states to all promise not to accept any
Companies breaking laws with impunity... I don't know of any examples today, but there were times when this was certainly a popular passtime.
And, again, I'm feeling like I've accidentally slipped into a parallel universe where I didn't mention AT&T breaking the law with impunity.
Unfortunately, the wiretaps (which were ONLY on international calls)
Do you have any proof of that whatsoever?
When the government does things in secret, and, what's more, lies about said things for three years, you'd have to be a particular sort of stupid to believe them now.
Exactly how is Blackwater immune to the laws of the US?
Because the executive branch refuses to investigate them?
When we fought the civil war, Habeas Corpus was suspended by that evil fascist, Lincoln. Lots of companies were in bed with the government (can you say war profiteers?)
I know you imagine everyone loves Lincoln, but I, personally, am not a huge fan. However, Congress has the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, and Lincoln, while acting outside of the executive branch because Congress was not in session, was not acting outside of the authority of the government in total, and Congress backed him when it got back. Now, if Congress had shown back up and said he couldn't do that, and, furthermore, they didn't want it suspended, and he kept it like that anyway, then we'd have a current analogy.
You'll notice that there is no such suspension possible for cruel and unusual punishment. You'll also notice we are not in the middle of an invasion or rebellion.
Oh, and lets continue to waterboard suspected non-citizen terrorists too - after all, we waterboard thousands of US servicemen every year just for training (I went through torture resistance training, and was subject to similar techniques, during the Vietnam war). If it's so innocuous that we can do it to our trainees, I have no problem doing it to our enemies.
Hey, at least you're intelligent enough to realize we're doing it to suspected terrorists, not 'terrorists', although for some reason you didn't put 'suspected enemies', so I'm not convinced you actually believe it. And what you have failed to notice is that that torture is, in fact, wrong.
I don't care what amoral atheists think, the Bible is pretty clear about this. You and all the other moral degenerates should go to some other country that wants that sort of filthy behavior, and not running around teaching our children it's acceptable.
Well, hell, you might as well give me a link to my blog then. Not that I ever post there, although I do have nice rants both about 'ticking time bombs' and software patents.
You mean the jackbooted thugs...that I said weren't coming? So I'm wrong...and they are coming?
What'd you do, some sort of keyword search or something without reading the post?
You're actually a search engine that's gained sentience and escaped, aren't you? Admit it. Which one are you, Alta Vista?
Incidentally, the term 'jackbooted thugs' is from the right, originally used against Bill Clintons' BATF, which in their imaginings came to take away people's guns. (Which is why I used it in the context of someone who imagined fighting fascism off using their guns.)
Fun fact about my user id: It predates the DailyKos.
A group of men planing together are terrorists and will be detained without trial and waterboarded until they confess.
There, I fixed that for you.
No, seriously, you're right...except it's not happening. But even if it was, there isn't anyone to shoot except for the people at the top, which is impossible, unless other people start rebelling against the system and at least not helping the oppression.
P.S. Isn't it time Firefox got 'waterboard' and 'waterboarded' in its dictionary?
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
It's not the least bit questionable, at all. Asserting it is does not make it so. We know for a fact the telecoms continued to wiretap without AG authorization for several months in 2004, which is, you know, illegal.
It is utter nonsense to hold the corporations responsible:
Except that the law explicitly lays out under what circumstances the government can ask them for a wiretap, and criminalizes any other wiretapping.
I'm not even going to bother with this topic anymore, as you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
where Blackwater has followed the law and its imposed regulations and rules, it should not be held liable while it is doing work for the government. If they go beyond their legal restrictions, then they should be.
Except they didn't follow the rules, and, when it came out, Rice granted them immunity before any of the questions could be answered. Oh, and had previously rigged the laws so they weren't under US or Iraqi law, just DoD rules, which she has, as I said, granted them immunity from.
You really don't even slightly know what's going on, do you?
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
fascism includes a totalitarian government and big businesses that act more like arms of the mob.
Yeah, it's not like we have any large business openly breaking the law with the consent and protection of the government.
Does no one know what I'm talking about with AT&T and Blackwater and their magical immunity to the law? Did that comment just slide right over everyone? I don't watch the news, I honestly don't know how much they're reporting this, but, geez, come on.
You actually understand what fascism is, so I'm forced to assume you're not really paying attention, or the media isn't reporting it.
Totalitarian fascism is not here, and I didn't say it was. But the start of fascism? That's it, right there. Where both the government and corporations working with the government do not have to follow laws. When the government is set up to funnel money to companies. When companies that don't play along, like Quest, are punished.
What you don't see in a fascist society is:
No, those are things you don't see in a totalitarian society. We are not there, we might never get there, but the current Administration is, indeed, trying to lead us there.
Ah, yes, libertarianism, the communism of the right.
What will actually happen were they elected? Not important.
The fact their movement is being operated by rich people who have the entirely different motive of not paying taxes, instead of any sort of 'freedom'? Not important.
The fact that American doesn't actually like their ideas, and that existing social nets int his country have approximately an 80% approval rating? Not important.
You see, only they know the truth, only their ideology is pure and will lead the way into the future.
I. Don't. Give. A. Flying. Fuck. about some hypothetical ideal libertarian society, any more than I give a flying fuck about some ideal communist one. I care what would actually happen were libertarians in power in this country enough to affect things, right now. Politics operates in the real world.
What would actually happen is that regulations and taxes would be loosened on large corporations...and that's it. Maybe taxes would be reduced somewhat on normal people, too, which would be damn stupid with our huge debt.
And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back. (Or, if it was just Ron Paul as president, Congress would just override his veto.)
The sole useful thing they might do is hugely reduce the military, but, at this point, I seriously doubt it.
My ideal national government is the one that governs the least, with only truly national decisions made at the national level.
Okay, I was trying to avoid this, but you get my anti-libertarian rant.
I want you to sit down and imagine what you think the government should do. As I do not wish to wait for this to happen, I will pretend I am a libertarian and answer:
The government should build roads, provide for the national defense, enforce the laws (Which should be pared down to, basically, property laws and crimes against people.), and, apparently, run the post office. (Just because the constitution says that explicitly for some reason.)
Did I miss anything? Is that basically it?
Now, let's look at these. Forget the post office and roads, those are trivial. First thing we notice is that law and national defense are, basically, the same thing, protecting people and their property against others harming them and taking their property, right? So there's basically only one legitimate function of the government, right? The major function of the government is simply to keep one person from harming another, correct?
Answer those questions in your head before continuing.
Now, here's the trick: Who owns the property that other people want in this country?
I think the answer is fairly obvious: Those in most danger of being robbed or harmed in this country without any sort of law enforcement are rich people. This is incredibly obvious, any yet no one appears to talk about it.
So, basically, to a Libertarian, the main legit function of the government is to protect the rich from the poor just walking up and taking their stuff, or sleeping on their property without paying rent.
Granted, that does seem to be a fairly important function, I'm not disputing that. However, it seems a little...one sided.
Maybe the government should do some things to benefit everyone, too. Like pay for their health care. (And, yes, the major candidates offering it are complete and total tools of the industry.)
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
No, the government would do that, rewarding companies that play along. Like the huge contract that AT&T got when they did play along, and the lawsuit that Quest's founder got when he refused. (Did no one pay attention when I mentioned the NSA/telecom thing?)
I know in magical libertarian land this isn't possible because government spending would be vastly reduced, but, as I pointed out, that part of the libertarian thing will not actually happen, or will happen and be reversed next election as everyone will hate it. But the loosening of business regulation will stay around for quite some time.
Just because libertarianism might be a reasonable plan if fully implemented doesn't mean it can't be very harmful if we only do the 'deregulate businesses' half and not the 'reduce government spending' half. And as we cannot, politically, do the later, it seems rather inane to even be talking about.
Those who think firearms in civilian hands are irrelevant need to review the history of the civil rights movement - not the shiny happy official story of how MLK's nonviolent resistance was all that mattered, but the real deal involving the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the Deacons for Defense and Justice, and many other armed black men who stood up to intimidation and brutality with rifles in their hands to win equality under the law. (Not to cut on MLK at all. But there's an obvious bias in the mainstream historical account.)
Exactly. The 60s was really the last time that using guns, or threatening to use guns, against the government actually worked, and that was only because so much of what was going on repression-wise was flatly illegal to start with, so saying 'Give me my rights, or we've going to have a gun battle right here' actually worked.
And if people want an example about what I'm talking about with fascism now, look how black people are repressed now and imagine it quadrupled. Specifically, look at the felony convictions giving them no political voice...you can't force people to let you vote at gunpoint, you can't force them to give you a job at gunpoint, you can't keep the government from freezing your bank account at gunpoint, you can keep them from evicting you at gunpoint, but that can't possibly end well.
The information age has disconnected people so much from their assets that the government can 'magically' make anyone a homeless pauper, and that person can be tracked anywhere. The government can do a multitude of things that affect you remotely, as can corporations.
If you operate within society, you're at the mercy of the government/corporations. You can't open fire on 'the government', there is no 'the government' standing there. You could open fire on random people working for the government and corporations, but that gains you absolutely no sympathy.
If you operate outside society...well, that might work, but then you pretty much automatically have no political voice anyway, so they don't give a damn.
You also ought to consider how American private gun ownership dissuaded the Japanese from thoughts of invasion during WWII. There is a quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Which is why we don't need a standing army beyond state militias. (Aka, the National Guard.) And their job should be to hand out the big guns and the explosives if an invasion happens.
So, you think the proper way to discuss things is to make vague statements, and, if they get misinterpreted, not actually clarify it in two follow-up posts? (This is assuming you're actually telling the truth.)
Welcome to my enemies list. I think you're the first one besides spammers.
Snocone's post is not 'flamebait', and it's completely absurd it's at 0 and mine is at 5. It's wrong, but it's not flamebait, at least not any more than both my post and the post it's replying to.
Sometimes the slashdot groupthink is a little scary.
I'm not sure how being against gun control is a 'Liberal-Democrat talking point'. And I quoted the parent post repeatedly, and took issue with his concept of totalitarianism, pointing out that the GP was talking about fascist totalitarianism, which doesn't require any troops on the street to shoot. I'm not entirely certain where you think I would have copied such a specific reply from.
And I think my follow-up posts clearly demonstrate I'm me and think the way I do, as does my previous posting history, as does the fact I have barely five digit user ID.
But, hey, if you think I plagiarized the post, or copied it from somewhere, feel free to post a link.
And yet another person who thinks I said that because, apparently, he just read the first line of my post.
To recap my discussion with the other stupid person, I said that the government isn't going to attack you, not that you couldn't fight them off if they did. Nor are they going to run troops up and down the street for you to attack.
I sit and talk reasonable about fascism, and you think Ron Paul is a reasonable alternative.
Newsflash: Libertarians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
They like to assert how they'd reduce government, but as social programs are immensely popular, they'd have absolutely no luck in reducing those any reasonable amount, and attempts to do so would quickly get them removed from office.
Meanwhile, they would happily remove government controls of corporation, leading us to fascism faster, and gut bankruptcy law even more, so now when your company fires you because you went to a political protest and you lose your house, now it's entirely legal! Or when your landlord does a check on what political party you belong to.
Granted, it would tilt toward corporations instead of the government, at least more than it does now, but that's hardly helpful. At least we can change our government.
That's why you have to make the population unsure of their future. Make sure they're this close to losing their house, make sure they've got medical debt, make sure they're paying credit cards with credit cards.
Then the government can do whatever the fuck it wants, because no one can afford a good lawyer if the government were to go after them.
Countries with large safety nets always have more rebellious populations. Or, to put it another way, it's almost always the secure middle class leading the rebellion, the one that isn't worried about ending up on the streets. (Re: the 1960s.)
Of course, go too far in the other way, drive enough people into proverty, and the government will discover that Janis Joplin was right...freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
It's the people worried about losing everything that don't rebel, people who have nothing and people who aren't worried about losing everything are the rebels. America is, right now, a very worried country.
Me: Have fun in your little made-up universe where cows wander into your house and you can pick them off at your leisure and eat them.
You: Why wouldn't he be able to do that? They're just cows, they should be pretty easy to shoot. Here's an example of people shooting cows. And plenty of people eat cows.
*facepalm*
The reason I said it was a made-up universe wasn't that the parent was incorrect about being able to fight off the government. (I don't personally believe they would, but that is not, in any way, what I asserted.)
The reason I said it was a made-up universe was, as the ENTIRE rest of my post explained, that the government isn't going to come round anyone up.
The premise won't happen. It doesn't matter what, hypothetically, would happen if it did, if he could fight them to a standstill or if he'd lose, as that is not something that is going to happen in the first place. The entire premise is imaginary.
Someone needs to take a basic logic course or something. I had two premises, that the government would need fighting off, and that he could do so, and I stated these premises were 'made up'. I'd actually understand the misunderstanding if I had just written the one sentence you quoted, in fact, such a statement by itself would be deliberately misleading of me.
This is why I then spent six paragraphs explaining that statement, including saying such things as '...pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane'. Notice the word 'start' there, not 'win' or 'lose'. And 'Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...', and then I carefully explain what they would do, none of which would present any opportunity for shooting people to stop them.
Which is why I asked if you'd actually read my post, or just saw the first line and assumed you knew where I was coming from.
Slashdot Mirror
a href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_70848.html'>Here is a useful discussion about different kinds of health care.
What I'm talking about is usually called 'Universal Single Payer', and is literally the only kind that makes sense. The idea that 'everyone' should have 'insurance' is a nonsensical proposal, although the Democratic front-runners like to pretend otherwise. If everyone has it, it's not insurance. If everyone has to have it, it is more properly called 'a tax'.
I have the same issue with car insurance. If we want to require everyone to pay a hundred dollars a month or so to cover, for others, of the cost of possible accidents, that sounds reasonable. Having private companies do it, however, is inane. (There is actual car insurance, that covers your own car, that people might wish on top of that.)
Do I have proof that the government is secretly breaking the law? Well, actually, reading the government's own statements about this, yeah, I do.
Sorry, but (1) what cruel and unusual punishment? (2) We are in the middle of a war (which oughta count)... or do you think Bush blew up the WTC on 9-11?
Torture is, by definition, cruel. That is what torture is.
But I can't dispute the 'that outta count' constitutional argument. I mean, sure, the founding fathers explicitly wrote 'invasion or rebellion', thus limiting the circumstances to when there were enemy soldiers walking around inside the US, but they probably meant 'war' and that we should be able to pick people up elsewhere and haul them over here.
Oh, and are you accusing me of being an amoral atheist? If so, you are incorrect in both the adjective and the noun.
I'll admit the 'atheist' was a bit of a guess. You a Satanist or something? I don't know much about that. I'm not trying to offend anyone. Kali worshipper? (I'm at a loss as to what religions condone torture.)
I was fairly certain the 'amoral' was dead on, though. I mean, you did suggest torturing people. It seemed a gimme.
Are you 'immoral' instead? Anti-moral? Pro-evil?
I'm afraid you may have a tendency to stereotype.
Sorry if I'm not as 'open minded' as you moral relativists who think that everyone should be allowed to do what they want, no matter what the consequences to society or how much society disapproves of their behavior.
I don't care if it's acceptable in other cultures like Syria and Egypt, I don't care being a torturer is genetic or learned. It's not something that decent folks approve of, and it's not something we expose to the public. Next thing I know you'll be trying to teach torture in public schools to our children. Maybe even torturing them a little as a 'cultural exchange', or at least showing them how to put rubber gloves on.
Of course, I'm against any sort of criminal activity directed against torturers, what they do to each other in private is none of our business. I'm just saying the government shouldn't sanction it, and it certainly shouldn't sponsor it!
Now, would you tell me where in the Bible it says we must allow our enemies to convert us to radical Islam by terror or murder?
I'm fairly certain I just asserted the Bible says we aren't to torture people. I suppose you've got some clever rebuttal about how the Bible also says we aren't to eat cheeseburgers or shave our sideburns or something.
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.
I don't know why you think I, or anyone, is trying to have it 'both ways'. I'm not trying to have it any way at all. I just said that Libertarian policies are deeply unpopular. Reducing social security is a third rail of politics, much less getting rid of it entirely.
However, they've reached the point where they are less unpopular than the Bush-lites running for president. Possibly because people do not actually know the full extent of these policies, and assume they will not be affected personally. (Before you start trying to point out that they can't be deeply unpopular and yet unknown, it is the policies, when you present them to people, are deeply unpopular. And people are unaware this is the Libertarians' or Ron Paul's platform.)
I know Libertarians actually believe what they think, and will probably try to implement it when elected. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting is that the actual useful parts of their platform will fail, (Or be undone next election) and the crappy parts will succeed.
So if libertarians actually had power, no, they would do what they say they would do, what was within their power, according to any honest interpretation of your own words.
Um, I'm fairly certain I didn't say otherwise. In fact, that's exactly what I said. I am confused as to how you are sarcastically agreeing with me. The Libertarians, unlike many of the Republicans and even Democrats, appear to be honest brokers who will try to do what they say. (Ron Paul, certainly.)
Then I said all that actually would be within their power if they won the Presidency was massive deregulation of industry (Or, rather, complete failure to enforce the laws, which is the worse possible way to get rid of law.), and possibly a lowering of taxes. Neither of which is even slightly a good idea idea right now.
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant, as I'm not really saying anyone in the executive branch acted illegally. (Although they actually appear to have done so.) That's a red herring.
I'm saying the telecoms acted illegally. The law explicitly states under what circumstances they can wiretap: Either with a warrant, or the AG's signature asserting that certain conditions are true. Any other conditions, and they are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter if they've got the signature of God Himself.
For most of the wiretapping, they got the AG's signature, although on a different piece of paper, on that state the entire program was legal. (Instead of one for each wiretap asserting it's on non-Americans, as is actually required.) They could have possibly argued in court that they were legal.
But they they operated it with just the president's authorization. We can sit and argue whether or not legally he could order that, I think he can't, not because he's not the AG (I agree that doesn't make a lot of sense.), but simply because the entire setup was in violation of the law in the first place.
However, that doesn't matter one bit with regard to the telecom's violation of the law. You don't get to violate the law because the president writes you a note. If the law says you need X's signature to do Y or it's illegal, you need X's signature, not his boss. Legal requirements do not magically follow up an employment tree.
Even if it was entirely 100% legal for the president to walk into AT&T and wiretap people, or order the NSA to do so, there is an entirely different law that forbids the telecoms from actually participating in that, and the telecoms are not part of the executive branch and have no inherent power to wiretap, or help people wiretap, whatsoever. (And it's actually the telecoms that are doing the wiretapping.)
Not about the money, but about him being "bought and paid for," yes. I know all about the money. But if you think his principles can be bought for that paltry sum, you're more myopic than I thought. Rockefeller simply wouldn't offer immunity if he thought it wasn't the right thing to do, period.
It's not immunity, please don't call it that. (Yes, I do it too, I'll try to stop.) Immunity is what you offer people in exchange for testimony. I actually wouldn't mind that so much.
What he's offering is amnesty. Where no one has to actually explain what is going on, no one has to explain how or why or even when. (There's evidence it started before 9/11, which would instantly render all the dumb AUMF justifications moot.) In fact, it's worse than amnesty, which would merely mean they couldn't be charged with the crime...it's retroactive legalization, which would also stop any lawsuits. Luckily, it appears to be dead in the water at this point.
And, incidentally, I view his write-letter 'objection' to the program as a wimpy ass-covering move. A real Congressman would have immediately called a closed session of Congress and disclosed it all. And dared the Administration to attempt to punish him for it. Instead, he did nothing.
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
Read
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority. The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004, and, at best, resumed being legal two to three weeks later. (Although there are indications that it lasted a good deal longer than that, too.) But there is a span of time that the program was flatly, indisputably, operated illegal.
This is, of course, assuming that the AG's signature made the problem legal, which it probably didn't, but it at least gave the telecoms some sort of defense. Without it, for that span of time, they are completely and totally fucked in court.
And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.) The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
Yeah, I'm lying about that, because that's really hard to check that his 1999-2004 donations had no telecoms at or over $10,000, whereas his 2001-2006 donations had AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn suddenly show up and donate over $12,000 each, a total of $50,000.
Admittedly, I was wrong about the dates. I should have said '$100 from each in 2004'. (Or 2005, I don't know why they don't break each year out.) Looks like the bribery started sooner than I thought.
I owe you an apology. I assumed you were agreeing much more with the GP than you actually were. Libertarians just annoy me. Actually, normally, they just annoy me, but right now they really piss me off suggesting a 'solution' to the problems that wouldn't work and make things worse by randomly deregulating things. And the circumstances are so dire, I'm afraid the American people might actually listen to them.
So I'm sorry I went off on you, and thanks for not responding in kind.
And I agree 100% with your health care point. We need government run health payment. Hospitals and doctors charge standard rates and bill the government, who pays them. We don't need any insane 'insurance' in there, and, as a bonus, all the stupid 'Is this procedure authorized' is gone. Billing is vastly more simple.
And people don't just wander around getting medical procedures for fun (Despite what people seem to think.) so we don't need a lot of control on it. Just basic fraud protection that the services being reimbursed for actually happened.
I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to do it, I interpret 'general welfare' looser than you, but I'd get behind one if there was.
And I agree about the road/drinking age thing.
What might be interesting is a constitutional amendment that lets a 2/3rd majority of states vote in stuff they want the Feds to fund, and what sort of restrictions they are allowed to put on the funding. This would explicitly only apply to funding, not adding any other powers to the Federal government, with a year-long lead in time for existing stuff like road funding. (And Congress, of course, would still have to then actually pass laws implementing the funding. Maybe they should do that first, actually.)
I don't know, that's just a suggestion I had off the top of my head because I don't like the idea of amending the constitution every time we want the Federal government to do something, and the fact we need something to undo what they're already doing when they attach stupid regulations to it.
Another way to look at this would be a minority veto over Federal spending. If a certain amount of states don't want the funding, or the regulations that come with it, the government cannot actually do it. So 17 states could stand up and say 'We don't want your stupid road money if you're going to make us raise the drinking age', and the government would be forced to remove that restriction or not give anyone money for them.
And, again, it doesn't apply to the Federal government ability to pass laws at all. The states couldn't vote that the government should regulate prostitution, although they could vote that the government should fund medical testing for prostitutes. (Although they would not, of course, actually do that.) Or they could vote that there are government grant to help fight prostitution, which they probably wouldn't do either. (And would still need the actual Federal government to agree to do, anyway.)
Does that make sense? I live in a state where, in 2000, we had two fricking constitutional amendments on the ballot to change the medical benefits of firefighters and police officers, which is just completely stupid. What are we paying the legislature for? Why are we deciding that? Why is that in our constitution? Did this become some sort of direct Democracy when I wasn't looking, where we operate the state government by amending the constitution?
So I'd like that we didn't start that federally, passing a constitutional amendment for every little thing we want the Federal government to help the states with, but I'd also really like there to be some sort of control over that, like you do. Right now, individual states can reject grants, but that just hurts them. It'd be nice if enough of the states rejected one, the government wasn't allowed to offer it at all. (You know, in theory, we don't need a constitutional amendment, or any laws at all, we just need the states to all promise not to accept any
Companies breaking laws with impunity... I don't know of any examples today, but there were times when this was certainly a popular passtime.
And, again, I'm feeling like I've accidentally slipped into a parallel universe where I didn't mention AT&T breaking the law with impunity.
Unfortunately, the wiretaps (which were ONLY on international calls)
Do you have any proof of that whatsoever?
When the government does things in secret, and, what's more, lies about said things for three years, you'd have to be a particular sort of stupid to believe them now.
Exactly how is Blackwater immune to the laws of the US?
Because the executive branch refuses to investigate them?
When we fought the civil war, Habeas Corpus was suspended by that evil fascist, Lincoln. Lots of companies were in bed with the government (can you say war profiteers?)
I know you imagine everyone loves Lincoln, but I, personally, am not a huge fan. However, Congress has the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, and Lincoln, while acting outside of the executive branch because Congress was not in session, was not acting outside of the authority of the government in total, and Congress backed him when it got back. Now, if Congress had shown back up and said he couldn't do that, and, furthermore, they didn't want it suspended, and he kept it like that anyway, then we'd have a current analogy.
You'll notice that there is no such suspension possible for cruel and unusual punishment. You'll also notice we are not in the middle of an invasion or rebellion.
Oh, and lets continue to waterboard suspected non-citizen terrorists too - after all, we waterboard thousands of US servicemen every year just for training (I went through torture resistance training, and was subject to similar techniques, during the Vietnam war). If it's so innocuous that we can do it to our trainees, I have no problem doing it to our enemies.
Hey, at least you're intelligent enough to realize we're doing it to suspected terrorists, not 'terrorists', although for some reason you didn't put 'suspected enemies', so I'm not convinced you actually believe it. And what you have failed to notice is that that torture is, in fact, wrong.
I don't care what amoral atheists think, the Bible is pretty clear about this. You and all the other moral degenerates should go to some other country that wants that sort of filthy behavior, and not running around teaching our children it's acceptable.
Well, hell, you might as well give me a link to my blog then. Not that I ever post there, although I do have nice rants both about 'ticking time bombs' and software patents.
Oh, yeah, I know that, I was just simplifying. I'm in favor of de-nationalizing the guard.
You mean the jackbooted thugs...that I said weren't coming? So I'm wrong...and they are coming?
What'd you do, some sort of keyword search or something without reading the post? You're actually a search engine that's gained sentience and escaped, aren't you? Admit it. Which one are you, Alta Vista?
Incidentally, the term 'jackbooted thugs' is from the right, originally used against Bill Clintons' BATF, which in their imaginings came to take away people's guns. (Which is why I used it in the context of someone who imagined fighting fascism off using their guns.)
Fun fact about my user id: It predates the DailyKos.
A group of men planing together are terrorists and will be detained without trial and waterboarded until they confess.
There, I fixed that for you.
No, seriously, you're right...except it's not happening. But even if it was, there isn't anyone to shoot except for the people at the top, which is impossible, unless other people start rebelling against the system and at least not helping the oppression.
P.S. Isn't it time Firefox got 'waterboard' and 'waterboarded' in its dictionary?
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
It's not the least bit questionable, at all. Asserting it is does not make it so. We know for a fact the telecoms continued to wiretap without AG authorization for several months in 2004, which is, you know, illegal.
It is utter nonsense to hold the corporations responsible:
Except that the law explicitly lays out under what circumstances the government can ask them for a wiretap, and criminalizes any other wiretapping.
I'm not even going to bother with this topic anymore, as you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
where Blackwater has followed the law and its imposed regulations and rules, it should not be held liable while it is doing work for the government. If they go beyond their legal restrictions, then they should be.
Except they didn't follow the rules, and, when it came out, Rice granted them immunity before any of the questions could be answered. Oh, and had previously rigged the laws so they weren't under US or Iraqi law, just DoD rules, which she has, as I said, granted them immunity from.
You really don't even slightly know what's going on, do you?
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for.
fascism includes a totalitarian government and big businesses that act more like arms of the mob.
Yeah, it's not like we have any large business openly breaking the law with the consent and protection of the government.
Does no one know what I'm talking about with AT&T and Blackwater and their magical immunity to the law? Did that comment just slide right over everyone? I don't watch the news, I honestly don't know how much they're reporting this, but, geez, come on.
You actually understand what fascism is, so I'm forced to assume you're not really paying attention, or the media isn't reporting it.
Totalitarian fascism is not here, and I didn't say it was. But the start of fascism? That's it, right there. Where both the government and corporations working with the government do not have to follow laws. When the government is set up to funnel money to companies. When companies that don't play along, like Quest, are punished.
What you don't see in a fascist society is:
No, those are things you don't see in a totalitarian society. We are not there, we might never get there, but the current Administration is, indeed, trying to lead us there.
But that is not libertarianism.
Ah, yes, libertarianism, the communism of the right.
What will actually happen were they elected? Not important.
The fact their movement is being operated by rich people who have the entirely different motive of not paying taxes, instead of any sort of 'freedom'? Not important.
The fact that American doesn't actually like their ideas, and that existing social nets int his country have approximately an 80% approval rating? Not important.
You see, only they know the truth, only their ideology is pure and will lead the way into the future.
I. Don't. Give. A. Flying. Fuck. about some hypothetical ideal libertarian society, any more than I give a flying fuck about some ideal communist one. I care what would actually happen were libertarians in power in this country enough to affect things, right now. Politics operates in the real world.
What would actually happen is that regulations and taxes would be loosened on large corporations...and that's it. Maybe taxes would be reduced somewhat on normal people, too, which would be damn stupid with our huge debt.
And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back. (Or, if it was just Ron Paul as president, Congress would just override his veto.)
The sole useful thing they might do is hugely reduce the military, but, at this point, I seriously doubt it.
What the hell are you talking about? Did I say anything unions? Why do you assume I'm against them?
My ideal national government is the one that governs the least, with only truly national decisions made at the national level.
Okay, I was trying to avoid this, but you get my anti-libertarian rant.
I want you to sit down and imagine what you think the government should do. As I do not wish to wait for this to happen, I will pretend I am a libertarian and answer:
The government should build roads, provide for the national defense, enforce the laws (Which should be pared down to, basically, property laws and crimes against people.), and, apparently, run the post office. (Just because the constitution says that explicitly for some reason.)
Did I miss anything? Is that basically it?
Now, let's look at these. Forget the post office and roads, those are trivial. First thing we notice is that law and national defense are, basically, the same thing, protecting people and their property against others harming them and taking their property, right? So there's basically only one legitimate function of the government, right? The major function of the government is simply to keep one person from harming another, correct?
Answer those questions in your head before continuing.
Now, here's the trick: Who owns the property that other people want in this country?
I think the answer is fairly obvious: Those in most danger of being robbed or harmed in this country without any sort of law enforcement are rich people. This is incredibly obvious, any yet no one appears to talk about it.
So, basically, to a Libertarian, the main legit function of the government is to protect the rich from the poor just walking up and taking their stuff, or sleeping on their property without paying rent.
Granted, that does seem to be a fairly important function, I'm not disputing that. However, it seems a little...one sided.
Maybe the government should do some things to benefit everyone, too. Like pay for their health care. (And, yes, the major candidates offering it are complete and total tools of the industry.)
Yes, and libertarians would also prevent other companies from coming along and hiring all of those fired workers! And would require people to do business with those evil companies who fired all those workers!
No, the government would do that, rewarding companies that play along. Like the huge contract that AT&T got when they did play along, and the lawsuit that Quest's founder got when he refused. (Did no one pay attention when I mentioned the NSA/telecom thing?)
I know in magical libertarian land this isn't possible because government spending would be vastly reduced, but, as I pointed out, that part of the libertarian thing will not actually happen, or will happen and be reversed next election as everyone will hate it. But the loosening of business regulation will stay around for quite some time.
Just because libertarianism might be a reasonable plan if fully implemented doesn't mean it can't be very harmful if we only do the 'deregulate businesses' half and not the 'reduce government spending' half. And as we cannot, politically, do the later, it seems rather inane to even be talking about.
Those who think firearms in civilian hands are irrelevant need to review the history of the civil rights movement - not the shiny happy official story of how MLK's nonviolent resistance was all that mattered, but the real deal involving the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the Deacons for Defense and Justice, and many other armed black men who stood up to intimidation and brutality with rifles in their hands to win equality under the law. (Not to cut on MLK at all. But there's an obvious bias in the mainstream historical account.)
Exactly. The 60s was really the last time that using guns, or threatening to use guns, against the government actually worked, and that was only because so much of what was going on repression-wise was flatly illegal to start with, so saying 'Give me my rights, or we've going to have a gun battle right here' actually worked.
And if people want an example about what I'm talking about with fascism now, look how black people are repressed now and imagine it quadrupled. Specifically, look at the felony convictions giving them no political voice...you can't force people to let you vote at gunpoint, you can't force them to give you a job at gunpoint, you can't keep the government from freezing your bank account at gunpoint, you can keep them from evicting you at gunpoint, but that can't possibly end well.
The information age has disconnected people so much from their assets that the government can 'magically' make anyone a homeless pauper, and that person can be tracked anywhere. The government can do a multitude of things that affect you remotely, as can corporations.
If you operate within society, you're at the mercy of the government/corporations. You can't open fire on 'the government', there is no 'the government' standing there. You could open fire on random people working for the government and corporations, but that gains you absolutely no sympathy.
If you operate outside society...well, that might work, but then you pretty much automatically have no political voice anyway, so they don't give a damn.
You also ought to consider how American private gun ownership dissuaded the Japanese from thoughts of invasion during WWII. There is a quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Which is why we don't need a standing army beyond state militias. (Aka, the National Guard.) And their job should be to hand out the big guns and the explosives if an invasion happens.
So, you think the proper way to discuss things is to make vague statements, and, if they get misinterpreted, not actually clarify it in two follow-up posts? (This is assuming you're actually telling the truth.)
Welcome to my enemies list. I think you're the first one besides spammers.
Snocone's post is not 'flamebait', and it's completely absurd it's at 0 and mine is at 5. It's wrong, but it's not flamebait, at least not any more than both my post and the post it's replying to.
Sometimes the slashdot groupthink is a little scary.
I'm not sure how being against gun control is a 'Liberal-Democrat talking point'. And I quoted the parent post repeatedly, and took issue with his concept of totalitarianism, pointing out that the GP was talking about fascist totalitarianism, which doesn't require any troops on the street to shoot. I'm not entirely certain where you think I would have copied such a specific reply from.
And I think my follow-up posts clearly demonstrate I'm me and think the way I do, as does my previous posting history, as does the fact I have barely five digit user ID.
But, hey, if you think I plagiarized the post, or copied it from somewhere, feel free to post a link.
Otherwise, STFU.
And yet another person who thinks I said that because, apparently, he just read the first line of my post.
To recap my discussion with the other stupid person, I said that the government isn't going to attack you, not that you couldn't fight them off if they did. Nor are they going to run troops up and down the street for you to attack.
I sit and talk reasonable about fascism, and you think Ron Paul is a reasonable alternative.
Newsflash: Libertarians are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
They like to assert how they'd reduce government, but as social programs are immensely popular, they'd have absolutely no luck in reducing those any reasonable amount, and attempts to do so would quickly get them removed from office.
Meanwhile, they would happily remove government controls of corporation, leading us to fascism faster, and gut bankruptcy law even more, so now when your company fires you because you went to a political protest and you lose your house, now it's entirely legal! Or when your landlord does a check on what political party you belong to.
Granted, it would tilt toward corporations instead of the government, at least more than it does now, but that's hardly helpful. At least we can change our government.
That's why you have to make the population unsure of their future. Make sure they're this close to losing their house, make sure they've got medical debt, make sure they're paying credit cards with credit cards.
Then the government can do whatever the fuck it wants, because no one can afford a good lawyer if the government were to go after them.
Countries with large safety nets always have more rebellious populations. Or, to put it another way, it's almost always the secure middle class leading the rebellion, the one that isn't worried about ending up on the streets. (Re: the 1960s.)
Of course, go too far in the other way, drive enough people into proverty, and the government will discover that Janis Joplin was right...freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
It's the people worried about losing everything that don't rebel, people who have nothing and people who aren't worried about losing everything are the rebels. America is, right now, a very worried country.
A cynical person would think this is by design.
Me: Have fun in your little made-up universe where cows wander into your house and you can pick them off at your leisure and eat them.
You: Why wouldn't he be able to do that? They're just cows, they should be pretty easy to shoot. Here's an example of people shooting cows. And plenty of people eat cows.
*facepalm*
The reason I said it was a made-up universe wasn't that the parent was incorrect about being able to fight off the government. (I don't personally believe they would, but that is not, in any way, what I asserted.)
The reason I said it was a made-up universe was, as the ENTIRE rest of my post explained, that the government isn't going to come round anyone up.
The premise won't happen. It doesn't matter what, hypothetically, would happen if it did, if he could fight them to a standstill or if he'd lose, as that is not something that is going to happen in the first place. The entire premise is imaginary.
Someone needs to take a basic logic course or something. I had two premises, that the government would need fighting off, and that he could do so, and I stated these premises were 'made up'. I'd actually understand the misunderstanding if I had just written the one sentence you quoted, in fact, such a statement by itself would be deliberately misleading of me.
This is why I then spent six paragraphs explaining that statement, including saying such things as '...pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane'. Notice the word 'start' there, not 'win' or 'lose'. And 'Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...', and then I carefully explain what they would do, none of which would present any opportunity for shooting people to stop them.
Which is why I asked if you'd actually read my post, or just saw the first line and assumed you knew where I was coming from.