Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;618407 wrote:The same could be said about many radical Christian groups as well.
  
  The point is that they will not ever achieve the financial and military might to ever get even close to the Nazis. As such, it's silly to call them Nazis.

  When did I actually call radical Islamists Nazis? I'll answer. I didn't.
  
  Ptown posed the challenge that Nazi-like evil does not exist today. I simply pointed out that radical Islam is proof that Nazi-like evil does in fact exist today.
  
  Radical Islamists are not Nazis per se, but they are indeed fascists.
  
  Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;618521 wrote:When did I actually call radical Islamists Nazis? I'll answer. I didn't.
  
  Ptown posed the challenge that Nazi-like evil does not exist today. I simply pointed out that radical Islam is proof that Nazi-like evil does in fact exist today.
  
  Radical Islamists are not Nazis per se, but they are indeed fascists.
  
  Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress.

  
  All true statements. There can be no rebuttal.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;618312 wrote:Bill Gates gives a billion dollars to a charity.
  
  I would if I could. Therefore I am Bill Gates?

  I Wear Pants;618407 wrote:The same could be said about many radical Christian groups as well.
  
  The point is that they will not ever achieve the financial and military might to ever get even close to the Nazis. As such, it's silly to call them Nazis.

  A) that was my point as well
  B) I never called them Nazis
  C) listen to what jihadists say/have said about Jews/infidels, and what Nazis said/did regarding Jews/unacceptable people. Ain't much difference.
  

  believer;618521 wrote:When did I actually call radical Islamists Nazis? I'll answer. I didn't.
  
  Ptown posed the challenge that Nazi-like evil does not exist today. I simply pointed out that radical Islam is proof that Nazi-like evil does in fact exist today.
  
  Radical Islamists are not Nazis per se, but they are indeed fascists.
  
  Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress.

  
  That's because no one can recall that happening, but the standard "all religions have their radicals" retort was to be expected.
• Bigdogg

  BGFalcons82;618531 wrote:All true statements. There can be no rebuttal.

  
  I guess you were sick the day your history professor discussed the Crusades period. LOL
• BGFalcons82

  

  Bigdogg;618569 wrote:I guess you were sick the day your history professor discussed the Crusades period. LOL

  
  AAAARRRRGGHHH....PLEASE go read believer's post and THEN put up a rebuttal if you think you got one. Where did anyone mention the crusades????!!
• I Wear Pants

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
  
  
  I guess those pages shouldn't exist.
  
  And don't forget that a Christian man bombed a Mosque in Florida this year. Guess that didn't happen either.
  
  And a dude, likely Christian, flew a plan into an IRS building. That didn't happen either.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree
  
  Didn't happen either right?
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10603010
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;618575 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
  
  
  I guess those pages shouldn't exist.
  
  And don't forget that a Christian man bombed a Mosque in Florida this year. Guess that didn't happen either.
  
  And a dude, likely Christian, flew a plan into an IRS building. That didn't happen either.

  Are there rogue delusional Christians like Timothy McVey out there willing to do radical things in the name of Jesus? Yes. Is it right? No.
  
  But a few hundred members of the "Lord's Resistance Army" may create some local Ugandan havoc, but it is hardly on the same playing field as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
  
  Once again you refuse to acknowledge the original argument that Nazi-like evil no longer exists on this planet. Radical Islam and - if you wish - a few rogue Christian-based groups prove that it does.
• I Wear Pants

  Few thousand. And they rape and murder lots of people.
  

  Pre-2008
  
  This list is not complete.
  
  In January, 1997 the LRA attacked Lamwo, in northern Uganda. More than 400 people were killed, and approximately 100,000 people were displaced.[48]
  
  In May, 2002 the LRA attacked Eastern Equatoria in Sudan. An estimated 450 people were killed, and witnesses state some villagers were forced to walk off a cliff.[48]
  [edit] 2008
  Main article: 2008 Christmas massacres (Congo)
  
  On December 25, 2008, the LRA massacred 189 people and abducted 120 children during a concert celebration sponsored by the Catholic church in Faradje, Democratic Republic of Congo, continuing the attack on December 26. Shortly afterwards, the LRA struck three additional communities: 75 people killed in a church north of Dungu, and the church burned; 48 people killed in Bangadi, and 213 people in Gurba.[49] The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated the death toll as 189 in Faradje, Doruma and Gurba.[49] However, Caritas International estimated the number of victims to be about 500.
  
  On December 28, 2008, the Ugandan army published details of the Doruma attack, accusing LRA rebels of hacking to death 45 people in a church there.[50] An aid official speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity confirmed the December 26 massacre, saying the killings took place in a Catholic church in the Doruma area, around 40 kilometres (25 miles) from the Sudanese border. "There are body parts everywhere. Inside the church, the entrance and in the church compound," the aid official said. "We got information the rebels cut 45 people into pieces," added army spokesman Captain Chris Magezi.[50]
  
  Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon stated that he "condemns in the strongest possible terms the appalling atrocities reportedly committed by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in recent days".[51] Caritas International said that it was "shocked by its staff reports" of the massacres.[52]
  
  Congo's army, along with armed forces from Uganda and Sudan, launched raids against LRA rebels in December 2008 intended to disarm the LRA and end its rebellion. The raids were unsuccessful.
  [edit] 2009
  
  Efforts by the Ugandan army in early 2009 ('Operation Lightning Thunder') to inflict a final military defeat on the LRA were not fully successful. Rather, the US-supported operation resulted in brutal revenge attacks by the LRA, with over 1,000 people killed in Congo and Sudan. The military action in the DRC did not result in the capture or killing of Kony, who remained elusive.[18]
  
  In December, 2009, the LRA massacred "at least" 321 people in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to a BBC investigation published in March, 2010 (see Makombo massacre).[48] The deaths were verified by the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch. Victims were hacked or battered to death, and survivors were made to carry loads for their attackers. At least eighty children of both sexes were captured, the boys as fighters, the girls to be sex slaves for the LRA members.[48] The sixty-mile (95 km) round-trip series of attacks began December 13, 2009, in Mabanga Ya Talo, and continued until December 18, traveling southeast down to the village of Tapili and back northwest again to the point of origin — a crossing over to the LRA camps on the north side of the Uele River near Mavanzonguda.[48]
  [edit] 2010
  
  In May 2010 it was reported that an investigation was being undertaken by a senior UN official over the massacre of over 100 people in February 2010.[53] The massacre is said to have been carried out by Ugandan rebels in Kpanga, near DR Congo's border with the Central African Republic and Southern Sudan.[53]

  I don't equate them on the level of the Nazis though. We disagree on that but I concede that it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to believe so.
  
  We also disagree (not necessarily you but some on this board) on the "fact" that Muslims are somehow more prone to evil deeds than Christians or other groups.
• believer

  

  It never ceases to amaze me how liberals go out of their way to defend radical Islam.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Sorry Pants, false equivalence doesn't cut it.
• I Wear Pants

  Where did I defend Radical Islam? I've said all the time on here that the Islamic radicals who wish to harm people need to be stopped and are unequivocally crazy and bad people. Where we tend to disagree is in how to stop them. But several on this board continue to suggest that I support, defend, or have something to gain from Radical Islam succeeding or not being viewed in as negative a light.
  
  I simply don't think they are on the level of evil as the Nazis who systematically killed 6 million Jews. Arguments could be made that they would do similar things if they could and I get that.
  
  Why is it that you'll go out of your way to defend Radical Christianity? I tend to bring up radical Christianity in threads where everyone is saying how terrible Islam is because of it's radical arm. But when the radical arm of Christianity is brought up I'm scoffed at as defending radical Islam or I'm told that radical Christians don't do nearly as bad of things.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BoatShoes;618435 wrote:Even if it were not a right, wouldn't it be the case that people such as yourself with your particular moral philosophy would help them anyways? Most Americans call themselves Christians and Christian Morality, if followed, would call for such individuals to help these irresponsible persons anyway, no? I'm not saying I think that it should be a "right" to be treated in an emergency room. What I am saying is that I think that point really seems moot when popular morality would create a moral obligation to help those people anyways. I think this is perhaps evidenced by other threads I've created describing a situation wherein people who were on their way to a nice dinner noticed persons in grave danger and most who responded agreed that they would save those people.

  What does it matter at this point when taxPAYERS are forced to "help" now or go to jail or get fined.
  
  It erases good intentions and benevolence right out of the equation because government has the most benevolence and good intentions of all. Right?
• I Wear Pants

  Where do you draw the line is the question?
  
  Do we deny people who have life threatening injuries at the emergency room if they don't have insurance?
  
  I mean, right now we don't deny them but we also don't just pay for it. Hospitals usually attempt to set up reasonable payment plans for these people because they'd rather get paid over a large period of time than not at all.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  believer;618324 wrote:Your analogy is incorrect.
  
  Do you honestly believe that if radical Islam had a solid source of financial and military might that it would behave in a more rational manner? Would they obey international law and treaties? If they had possession of nuclear weapons, for example, would they not use them?
  
  Based on what I've observed the answer to all of these questions would be a resounding no.

  I Wear Pants;618612 wrote:Where did I defend Radical Islam? I've said all the time on here that the Islamic radicals who wish to harm people need to be stopped and are unequivocally crazy and bad people. Where we tend to disagree is in how to stop them. But several on this board continue to suggest that I support, defend, or have something to gain from Radical Islam succeeding or not being viewed in as negative a light.
  
  I simply don't think they are on the level of evil as the Nazis who systematically killed 6 million Jews. Arguments could be made that they would do similar things if they could and I get that.
  
  Why is it that you'll go out of your way to defend Radical Christianity? I tend to bring up radical Christianity in threads where everyone is saying how terrible Islam is because of it's radical arm. But when the radical arm of Christianity is brought up I'm scoffed at as defending radical Islam or I'm told that radical Christians don't do nearly as bad of things.

  Believer specifically said "radical". He didn't just blanket Islam.
  
  The "defending" equation comes in when people (and sorry, you're included in this from your own words) nut up and can't stand it when anything about Islamic terrorists are mentioned. Right away - another group has to be brought up because God forbid, Islamic terrorists might have to stand up on their own two feet for what they do and have a label hung on them.
  So, in alot of people's minds, it's defending when you can't let a group face the focus by themselves.
  
  Kind of like when you hear "well you're kid did it too!" or "well he cheated first!". Lame.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;618647 wrote:Where do you draw the line is the question?
  
  Do we deny people who have life threatening injuries at the emergency room if they don't have insurance?
  
  I mean, right now we don't deny them but we also don't just pay for it. Hospitals usually attempt to set up reasonable payment plans for these people because they'd rather get paid over a large period of time than not at all.

  Personally, if you've just got a friggin cold, there's no need to go to the emergency room. But people do it.
  If you people vomit more than once, they go to emergency rooms.
  
  I don't know how many times I've been in the emergency room with one of my parents and seen people sitting in the waiting room reading the newspaper or some such thing, buying a pop and chips out of the vending machines and sit and wait to be called in. Didn't seem to be any "emergency". Then later I'll catch a glimpse of them lying on a bed or getting checked out by a nurse/doctor on my way through the hall. These people get examined, and alot of times get enough of a prescription to last them overnight until they get to a pharmacy.
  
  So, unless you're having a major trauma (heart attack and the like), bleeding or been in a car crash, I don't see a need to be there.
• I Wear Pants

  I agree with you there.
• I Wear Pants

  CenterBHSFan;618650 wrote:Believer specifically said "radical". He didn't just blanket Islam.
  
  The "defending" equation comes in when people (and sorry, you're included in this from your own words) nut up and can't stand it when anything about Islamic terrorists are mentioned. Right away - another group has to be brought up because God forbid, Islamic terrorists might have to stand up on their own two feet for what they do and have a label hung on them.
  So, in alot of people's minds, it's defending when you can't let a group face the focus by themselves.
  
  Kind of like when you hear "well you're kid did it too!" or "well he cheated first!". Lame.

  I bet at least one of the posters who call me a defender of radical Islam would do the exact same thing if I started making a thread everytime a Christian killed someone in the name of their religion.
  
  But that's off-topic. Which actually I have no idea how we went from health-care mislableing to a debate on whether there is some sort of Anti-Muslim bias going on in the US/how big of a terrorist lover I am.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;618639 wrote:What does it matter at this point when taxPAYERS are forced to "help" now or go to jail or get fined.
  
  It erases good intentions and benevolence right out of the equation because government has the most benevolence and good intentions of all. Right?

  
  It does not erase such motivations but rather codifies them. It is the People saying that the the People as a whole, overall, through democratic deliberation by elected agents endorse this particular moral worldview. There is no forcing going on. The People chose to adopt this ethical standard. If you believe in the virtues and legitimacy of such a system than you must accept that. Nevertheless, Most states don't have good Samaritan laws as they pertain to the average ordinary citizen. What we're talking about is one particular group of citizens with particular skills at helping those in need of medical attention, namely health care providers, being required to assist those who visit an emergency facility regardless of whether or not they have born their burden to insure themselves. I'm not saying I endorse this idea but it is much different than what you're trying to suggest it would appear.
  
  HitsRus' desire is that upon seeing one leech die outside the front of a hospital's emergency room door stop because the hospital neglects to treat him due to his lack of insuring his own health, the story will make the papers and will provide an incentive to other would be drains on society to insure themselves or face a similar fate. Perhaps not a world friendly to the words of Christ but maybe one with people more self-reliant in regards to insuring their health. However, I doubt it. In our current world we provide incentives to people to insure their life, buy a home, invest in capital, save for retirement, etc. and yet none of these really have had a powerful effect on the choices of most flesh and blood human beings. Instead of a world with more insured individuals I'd imagine the only thing to be gained for the People would be a guiltier conscience. Just my opinion on the matter.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;618324 wrote:Your analogy is incorrect.
  
  Do you honestly believe that if radical Islam had a solid source of financial and military might that it would behave in a more rational manner? Would they obey international law and treaties? If they had possession of nuclear weapons, for example, would they not use them?
  
  Based on what I've observed the answer to all of these questions would be a resounding no.

  
  You are basing your argument that there is one single movement. Actually, there is not. There are many, small groups competing with each other.
  There was just released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point called "Self-Inflicted Wounds: Debates and Divisions within al-Qa'ida and its Periphery"
  (Large pdf) http://brianhowesfishman.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/siw_final_1-dec-2010.pdf
  
  Pretty much says, there is no one jihad movement, just many different interpretations of the movement. So, to say there if radical Islam had this or that makes no sense as there is no radical Islam, but many different factions.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;618521 wrote:When did I actually call radical Islamists Nazis? I'll answer. I didn't.
  
  Ptown posed the challenge that Nazi-like evil does not exist today. I simply pointed out that radical Islam is proof that Nazi-like evil does in fact exist today.
  
  Radical Islamists are not Nazis per se, but they are indeed fascists.
  
  Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress.

  
  I disagree with you that they are on the same level of evil as Nazi's. OBL is not Hitler. He is more like Saddam or Qadaffi.
  I don't give jihadis that must credit.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I think you underestimate him too much p-town (OBL).
  
  He may not be on the scale of a Hitler, but he sure as hell isn't as ineffectual as Saddam or Qadaffi when it comes to spreading terrorism outside the boundaries of their own countries.
  
  OBL has, on numerous occasions, been behind attacks around the world that have killed thousands of innocent people. He's certainly not on the scale of Hitler, but the scope of his reach is much, much farther than Saddam or Qadaffi.
• Bigdogg

  BGFalcons82;618572 wrote:AAAARRRRGGHHH....PLEASE go read believer's post and THEN put up a rebuttal if you think you got one. Where did anyone mention the crusades????!!

  
  You did not mention the Crusades. You did state this as a matter of fact:
  

  Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress.

  I and others on here proved you wrong and your not man enough to admit your mistake.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Bigdogg;619393 wrote:You did not mention the Crusades. You did state this as a matter of fact:
  
  
  
  I and others on here proved you wrong and your not man enough to admit your mistake.

  
  "Oh and by the way, I cannot recall any radical Christian groups beheading anyone of late nor have they hijacked airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into skyscrapers full of innocent people...but I digress."
  
  I'm sorry...are the Crusades terrorizing anyone O F L A T E ?????
  
  Now admit your mistake, bigdogg. Or would you like to continue this pissing match?
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;619404 wrote:I'm sorry...are the Crusades terrorizing anyone O F L A T E ????? Now admit your mistake, bigdogg. Or would you like to continue this pissing match?

  Liberals have no issue removing things from context, ignoring facts, or distorting facts to make their arguments...which is precisely why they fail.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;619386 wrote:I think you underestimate him too much p-town (OBL).
  
  He may not be on the scale of a Hitler, but he sure as hell isn't as ineffectual as Saddam or Qadaffi when it comes to spreading terrorism outside the boundaries of their own countries.
  
  OBL has, on numerous occasions, been behind attacks around the world that have killed thousands of innocent people. He's certainly not on the scale of Hitler, but the scope of his reach is much, much farther than Saddam or Qadaffi.

  For some the level of evil is what's relevant; not the evil in and of itself.
  
  There's no doubt in my mind that OBL would be equal to or worse than Hitler IF he had the centralized financial and military might that Hitler enjoyed. But since OBL's Islamafascists have only killed thousands as opposed to millions his level of evil is apparently not on par with der Führer's.