Due to putting together part-time jobs over the past 25 years, and because of a pre-existing condition, I have been unable to get health insurance before the Affordable Care Act was put into effect. Since 2015 I have had plans from the Marketplace, and during that time I got one operation to prevent a life-threatening condition, and been informed by my doctor that I need one once again.
So, why I am so darn liberal? Could be because I am a lying hypocrite with no regard for the truth. Or, because I want to live.
51 comments:
Most benefits of Obamacare are confined to a few provisions (forbidding excluding of pre-existing conditions, creating eligibility for those not able to purchase via a large group plan, and establishing minimum requirements of a plan) of a thousands-of-pages law, much of which was gerrymandered by special interests which are now fighting to keep their gerrymandering in place.
For example, the drug companies have the marketplace stacked in their favor: they are allowed to be monopolistic in pricing but the insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid for states cannot collude to fight such behavior, as it would be monopolistic.
Sadly, the Republicans are split by their lobbyists, and seem so far to lack the will to properly streamline the act in favor of the consumer because of the same special interests that lobbied Democrats to create the defects in the Act in the first place.
"So, why I am so darn liberal [sic]? Could be because I am a lying hypocrite with no regard for the truth. ..."
Bingo.
Allow me to remind you of something you said and have never repudiated (*). I paraphrase: "I support policies to increase the taxes of "the rich", but I don't see why *my* taxes have gone up."
"... Or, because I want to live"
... at someone else's expense.
(*) and how could you repudiate it and still be a leftist
As if wanting to live is WHY you are a liberal. I want to live and I'm not a liberal. Must be something else, Victor.
Well, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, and I think it's a good idea for the whole society to share the burden of health care for everyone. I don't regard that as a political issue, but one of common sense. (Is it better for everyone in a society to be healthy? Yes or no?) The same way I don't think abortion ought to be considered a political issue, but one of simple morality. (Should we kill our children? Yes or no?) Environmentalism. (Should we befoul our nest? Yes or no?)
Once you think about most of the so-called divisive issues in that manner, it's amazing how little space is left for politics. You might still disagree about what the answers should be, but such a debate can remain entirely about the facts and the merits - ideology need not be a factor.
Recently, a daughter of old friends of ours married. In the process of moving and resettling with this change, she was without insurance for most of 2016. She found out in January she owes potentially thousands in fines at tax time, even though she has used almost no medical services in recent years, as a healthy 27-year-old.
If Trump truly cancels this year's negative financial burdens of Obamacare as he said in his executive order, she might be off the hook, she hopes. Like many things in the insurance business, one set of consumers subsidizes others: but shouldn't this be more voluntary than it is under Obamacare?
I am still glad Victor got insurance for his costs!
William,
Is your friend's daughter childless? If so, the maximum fine under the current law for not being insured for two adults is $1390, not "thousands". If it was just the daughter who had no insurance while her husband did, then the maximum is $695.
And those are the maximums. To be liable to the maximum penalty, their combined income has to exceed $55,600. If they earned less than that, the penalty is reduced accordingly.
And as with all tax situations, there are probably 10,000 ways to get around paying anything at all.
B.Prokop: "Well, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative ..."
True; you're still a leftist-who-knows-he's-a-leftist. And you're fighting tooth-and-nail to hold onto that leftism in the face of all the moral outrages that your fellow leftists are imposing on society.
America's so-called "liberals" (*) are leftists-who-have-(unprincipled)-reservations to full-bore leftism. And because they can't enunciate a principle to ground those reservations, they always eventually give in to the psycho-left's demands; as witness VR and abortion.
B.Prokop: "... and I think it's a good idea for the whole society to share the burden of health care for everyone."
And I know it's not a good idea.
B.Prokop: "... I don't regard that as a political issue, but one of common sense."
Nice trick -- *my* politics aren't political.
(*) If the word were being used correctly, *I'm* the liberal.
"And I know it's not a good idea."
Why not? You're not going to convince anyone just by saying "'Cause I say so!"
I'll go first. Reason alone tells us that a healthy society is superior to an unhealthy one. And when some members have no access to regular health care, they inevitably end up in our emergency rooms, which is by far the costliest, least efficient way of administering care. By not ponying up a small amount of funds up front (through some form of national health care), we end up paying far more - for less.
And that's not politics - it's just common sense.
Your turn.
Allow me to remind you of something you said and have never repudiated (*). I paraphrase: "I support policies to increase the taxes of "the rich", but I don't see why *my* taxes have gone up."
"... Or, because I want to live"
... at someone else's expense.
(*) and how could you repudiate it and still be a leftist
rich people are leachesay almost no taxex we pay thie rway/ dumbass.
True; you're still a leftist-who-knows-he's-a-leftist. And you're fighting tooth-and-nail to hold onto that leftism in the face of all the moral outrages that your fellow leftists are imposing on society.
America's so-called "liberals" (*) are leftists-who-have-(unprincipled)-reservations to full-bore leftism. And because they can't enunciate a principle to ground those reservations, they always eventually give in to the psycho-left's demands; as witness VR and abortion.
you don't know nuffn' dumbass,
what's the point of taking seriously pretend discussion with a poisoned mind that has no intention of stenciling or thinking? he knows it all can't examine any other view,everyone but him is sick. there is a reason why Martin Luther King did not try to talk to theh KKK.
"And that's not politics"
Yes it is. When government is making policy, it's politics. Your common sense argument is a weak excuse for government to get involved. Congressman Gowdy explains
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O2cLKClim7o
Well, Steve, you and I apparently have different understandings of what "politics" includes.
Green's linkwhy am i the only one who can make links?
mandatory health care has not been ruled unconstitutionality.
sorry Steve K's link my apology
I looked at Gowdy's comments. Look, here is the problem. The first problem has to do with whether government should help make sure everyone can get health care, or is it a commodity, like a car, which can be bought if people can afford it, but if not, there is no injustice. Or is it like police protection, which government has the duty to make sure everyone has regardless of what they can afford. Does my previous lack of health insurance because I got a pre-existing condition 40 years ago and didn't get the kind of job that made be eligible for a employer plan represent something unfair, or is it something that is just too bad, but nothing unfair has happened. I think there was an injustice there. I didn't refuse to work to get health insurance, the circumstance of my jobs made my jobs not benefits-eligible. So how do we overcome the injustice? Either we do it the way Obamacare does it (which was first recommended by conservatives as an alternative to socialized medicine) or we go socialist on medicine.
If you replace Obamacare, the big question is "with what???"
I like your analogy to police protection. Everyone ought to get equal service from the police force (yes, I know the reality is nothing at all like that, although that is the ideal) regardless of their ability to pay for it. BUT... everyone who does have the ability to pay, ought to do their part (through taxes) to support it.
Is it reasonable to envision health care along the same lines?
I don't see why we can't combine the two sides, so to speak. Granted I have been to the doctor maybe five times in the last fifteen years, so I definitely don't have personal experience with the industry, so feel free to correct me.
Given the nature of insurance as a pooled risk, it only makes sense that everyone has it. But why can't we combine a mandate with whatever methods we can to properly deregulate and allow nationwide competition, a wide range of products tailored for individual needs, tax breaks for health insurance costs for the middle class and poor, etc. Tweak things to cheapen the cost of bringing new medicine to market.
None of that may be possible, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
"I'm just throwing stuff out there."
And that's the attitude everyone ought to have, approaching such issues. No ideology, no politics, just rational consideration of various proposals to see which one actually works in the Real World.
"And that's the attitude everyone ought to have, approaching such issues. No ideology, no politics, just rational consideration of various proposals to see which one actually works in the Real World."
But how can we decry the evils of socialism or the selfishness of the right if we do this?
As an Aussie I find these debates incredibly bizarre.
Universal health care makes sense. Right wing Americans scream "SOCIALISM!!!!!one!!!!1!!".
Err. Debate over I guess. You win!
ruary 08, 2017 3:03 PM
Blogger B. Prokop said...
I like your analogy to police protection. Everyone ought to get equal service from the police force (yes, I know the reality is nothing at all like that, although that is the ideal) regardless of their ability to pay for it. BUT... everyone who does have the ability to pay, ought to do their part (through taxes) to support it.
Is it reasonable to envision health care along the same lines?
>>>I don't know why it isn't a good analogy, also draw same analogy to fire protection. Law enforcement and fire protection a critic could argue protect the community at large even though they may extend their befit to one person at a time its the good of the community. But so is health care in several ways: through not spreading disease and reduction of cost of insurance benifits the community. There's even employment advantage.
Legion of Logic said...
"And that's the attitude everyone ought to have, approaching such issues. No ideology, no politics, just rational consideration of various proposals to see which one actually works in the Real World."
But how can we decry the evils of socialism or the selfishness of the right if we do this?
>>.true takes all the fund out of politics.
"takes all the fund out of politics"
I realize that was most likely a typo, but it's hilarious (and very true) nevertheless!
I think people should stop calling Obamacare socialism. It's not. It's a last ditch attempt to keep capitalism in medicine.
ictor Reppert said...
I think people should stop calling Obamacare socialism. It's not. It's a last ditch attempt to keep capitalism in medicine.
February 09, 2017 10:08 AM
totally right Doc. i wish it was socialism, i would support it even more
I just read this morning this article, which brilliantly gives words to what I've been struggling to say for several years now about my attitude towards politics and partisanship.
The only better description I've ever read of how I think about these things can be found in Dante's Divine Comedy, Canto VII, lines lines 16-60, describing the Inferno's Fourth Circle. I especially like the lines where Dante asks Virgil to point out specific souls from amongst the mass of sinners there, and is told that it is no longer possible to tell them apart, since they had surrendered all individuality to the party line in this life (very free translation!).
Word of warning to all you hyper-partisans out there - it is a mortal sin to be such! (Definition of mortal sin: it lands you in hell.)
Or, because I want to live.
And all you had to do was spend your life supporting a political menagerie that boosts abortion, gay marriage, Christian mockery and persecution, domestic spying, and the cultural, political, and even legal shunning of all who oppose them.
But, after having done without it for 25 years, you were finally able to get health insurance, paid for by other people. Namely, throngs who you attack and denounce for objecting to the arrangement, while heaping praise and thanks on the person who took from them to give to you.
What a bargain.
Regardless of whatever system is was that enabled Victor to get the medical treatments necessary to keep him alive, I am deeply grateful for the fact that he got them, and has been kept alive. Nothing more need be said.
I think this kind of response does not get to the central issue here.
First of all, this is not socialized medicine. I pay my insurance premiums. I would have had health insurance a lot sooner, paying for it, if I had not contracted a chronic illness in my 20s and become thereby ineligible for self-pay health insurance.
I take it the taxpayers who pay for my insurance subsidy, are a mix of Republicans and Democrats. Why assume that it is just Republicans paying for my subsidy? What evidence do you have that Republicans pay more taxes than Democrats?
This is not about abortion and gay marriage. Nor is it about what kind of national defense policy to have. In my view there are both Democratic and Republican blind spots. It is perfectly possible to be a social conservative and an economic liberal. I have considerably more sympathy with some of the social conservative positions than I do with national defense conservatism or economic conservatism. The social issues are not slam dunks the way some people on the right think they are, but, for example, the left's attempt to identify all resistance to homosexual conduct as bigotry is a huge mistake that might have played a considerable role in why Democrats lost the White House. (The revelations of Trump's "locker room talk" should have caused a mass exodus from the Trump camp, but failed to do so because the Democrats have done things to marginalize Christian conservatives).
Economic conservatism seems to imply that success or failure within the economic system is a function of desert, and it just isn't. I don't think this is supported by the Bible or the mainstream Christian tradition.
I take it the taxpayers who pay for my insurance subsidy, are a mix of Republicans and Democrats. Why assume that it is just Republicans paying for my subsidy? What evidence do you have that Republicans pay more taxes than Democrats?
Do you think my point is really blunted by pointing out that there are Democrats paying taxes too? I'll skip the stats, though 'Man they sure get a lot of votes from the poor' is superficially obvious.
Regardless, what do you care? You wanted coverage, and you got it. You're grateful to the people who took the money and tossed it your way. The people who pay don't even register. Why should they? Like they had a choice.
By the way, I don't even care about that so much. You pursued a policy which benefited you? Not exactly the height of Christian motivation, but I don't expect you to be a paragon. Hell, I'm glad you're forward rather than saying it was wholly virtuous thinking of others. But I know just what the price of that loyalty has been, and how far it extends.
Which is why this...
This is not about abortion and gay marriage.
...is bullshit.
It's part of the package. You want that money, you want that economic system? You want them to win? Well, then you hold your tongue on those topics. You don't criticize them, you don't make the link. You talk about something else. Or you defend them. Maybe try to pretend that the GOP is riddled with Ayn Rand atheists to the degree the left is riddled with secular humanists. Lament, briefly, that while you get your free health care, other people get six figure fines for not wanting to service a gay wedding.
Look at Prokop there, waxing dramatic about the sin of partisanship after a lifetime of adhering to it. He tried playing the game of just not having an opinion on gay marriage or abortion, until finally even that wasn't good enough. Reminds me of those damn Catholic bishops who went along with the democrats and were shocked when they finally whirled around and said 'We want more than your support, you freakishly dressed fops.'
Economic conservatism seems to imply that success or failure within the economic system is a function of desert
Christ lived in a time of full-blown occupation, nepotism and more. Yet he encouraged people to give of their own free will, and he encouraged gratefulness on the part of the recipient. Personal transformation was central, not economic reform. Radical thought, I know.
Like I said, the 'I want free stuff' aspect, freely admitted to, bothers me less here. I'm not a diehard against social spending. It's the rest of the package, and how it's sustained, that gets me. But I digress. Let's put on some stupid pink hat and call for Trump's impeachment, because the really, really devout Christian abortionists who lead the left have called for it, and oh, there are bills to pay...
"after a lifetime of adhering to it"
Not quite a lifetime, since by my count I have voted for both major parties about the same number of times over the decades. (Remember, I am the only person I know who can boast of having voted for both Goldwater and McGovern. And I don't regret either vote.)
But yes, I was a sinner. I freely admit it. I have now repented of my sin (and that is what it was), have repudiated it -in public - and have resolved (with the aid of God's Grace) to "sin no more". What is so wrong with that?
" Yet [H]e encouraged people to give of their own free will"
He also taught that people ought to pay their taxes, as did St. Paul.
What is so wrong with that?
The fact that it's a bunch of baloney.
He also taught that people ought to pay their taxes, as did St. Paul.
A stinging condemnation of illegal immigrants working under the table, Bob. I didn't know you had it in you.
[Mark's] education had had the curious effect of making things that he read and wrote more real to him than things he saw. Statistics about agricultural labourers were the substance; any real ditcher, ploughman, or farmer’s boy, was the shadow. Though he had never noticed it himself, he had a great reluctance in his work ever to use such words as “man” or “woman,” He preferred to write about “vocational groups,” “elements,” “classes” and “populations”: for in his own way, he believed as firmly as any mystic in the superior reality of the things that are not seen. ...
He had recommended that certain classes of people should be gradually eliminated: but he had never been there when a small shopkeeper went to the workhouse or a starved old woman of the governess type came to the very last day and hour and minute in the cold attic. He knew nothing about the last half cup of cocoa drunk slowly ten days before. (C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength)
No matter what one thinks of the issue, before anyone makes any sort of blanket statement concerning immigrants, documented or otherwise, he really ought to read the above.. slowly, prayerfully, and multiple times.
(This is, after all, a website about Lewis.)
No matter what one thinks of the issue, before anyone makes any sort of blanket statement concerning immigrants, documented or otherwise, he really ought to read the above.
Buddy, you backed the abortion party for decades in your life - zealously. And when time came to defend Church teaching on that matter, you engaged in studious silence. Do us a favor and report back on the demographics of abortion.
Meanwhile, you're trying to suggest it's a moral crime to bar millions and millions of migrants at the border. God forbid anyone care about their country the way the Poles care about theirs, in all their ethnic and religious homogeneity.
You've got no moral mountain from which to lecture us.
But if you want to read something slowly and prayerfully, I've got something for you too.
"Meanwhile, you're trying to suggest it's a moral crime to bar millions and millions of migrants at the border."
I am? Where did I say that, or even hint at that? Please quote me, so I can see where I went wrong. As far as I can see, I expressed no opinion on the issue, one way or the other.
What I did say was we need to think carefully and prayerfully about the issue, and think in terms of actual human beings and not of faceless, depersonalized categories. Do you have a problem with that?
What I did say was we need to think carefully and prayerfully about the issue, and think in terms of actual human beings and not of faceless, depersonalized categories. Do you have a problem with that?
Bob Prokop flashes his teeth! And gets me with a fair criticism. Man, it's been a while since I had one of those.
I've prayed, Bob. I do what I think is best. I'm tired of being sold the idea that the only way to help anyone in the world is to allow them to immigrate en masse, and that nothing bad ever comes of that. I live among a very heavy immigrant population. I see the good and the bad. There's both. And I don't want more.
I also live in an area (Baltimore) with many recent immigrants (many more, depending on how you define "recent") During the Reagan years, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews came to the Baltimore area, changing the character of whole towns. During the 90s, the suburbs west of town were "flooded" with immigrants from Korea - so many that today there are now neighborhoods where signage in Hangul (the Korean alphabet) is all you see. My own neighborhood, Fells Point, has long been known as a center for immigration from Poland. (Masses are still said in Polish in my church.)
And more recently, there have been more and more immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East. Just 3 days ago, I was taking my 2-month old grandson on a stroller walk through Highlandtown, a neighborhood to the east of me, and heard as much Arabic being spoken on the sidewalk as English. I see evidence of an increasing Hispanic presence here in Fells Point. Two fantastic new restaurants, La Tolteca and Points South Baltimore, have opened up within yards of my apartment building. I have yet to see a taco truck on every corner, but I did pass by two of them last week on a drive to nearby Laurel, MD. The last two cab rides I took were driven by a Somali and an Eritrean. I have no idea where the maintenance workers in my apartment come from, but most of them do not speak English. Every summer in nearby Patterson Park, the city holds a series of ethnic festivals, to include Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Greek, Italian, African (they get lumped together), Mexican, German, and a few others I can't think of just now.
And I have never lived anywhere I have loved more! (except maybe Augsburg, Germany)
And I have never lived anywhere I have loved more!
Fascinating. For those of you looking on and reading about the gee-golly-greatness with which Bob talks about his wonderful city, let me share with you a very recent past experience of his.
As a Baltimorean who was basically confined to his apartment this last week while we were under Marshal Law, with a 10PM curfew, National Guard troops on every street corner, and military helicopters circling overhead all night long, I think I have the right to say something to say on this matter.
I started out mostly afraid, and then angry, and now I just wonder... I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of my neighbors (which is who these rioters are) and see why they acted this way.
And it turns out I cannot find it in my heart to condemn them. I try to imagine what it must be like to live in neighborhoods where the schools are shit, where there are no jobs, where transportation to where there are jobs is ridiculously expensive and far from adequate, where there are no grocery stores or healthy food choices, where the majority of males are locked up at some point, leaving them with a record for life making it far harder to get a good job, where the police will arrest you for making eye contact... damn it, but maybe that'd be enough to make me want to break a few windows.
I love my city! I love my fellow Baltimoreans - black, white, Catholic, Protestant, rich or poor (all but those who for some reason insist on wearing Yankees caps). True, I am in great sorrow now because of the events of the past week, but forming a circular firing squad is definitely not the answer. I only pray that the recent violence and destruction results in waking people up to the need for positive change.
Behold, the beautiful life and experience that Bob Prokop wants - indeed, demands - the rest of us to live in.
Behold the beautiful neighborhood: 'Shit schools, no jobs, shitty transportation, bad grocery stores, the men are all criminals and if they're not in jail they will be, and also for some crazy reason the cops tend to arrest them and that's terrible, and also they riot - but that's justified because this place is a fucking disaster and it sucks to live here.'
And he loves it. He loves it so much, he wants everyone to live in the same 'beautiful' neighborhood he does. He loves it even when it's burning to the ground, which he thinks is entirely justified.
Keep your love out of our neighborhoods, you lunatic.
Thank you for reprinting that! Yes, I unreservedly LOVE this wonderful, magical, beautiful city. I don't have that many years left on this Earth, but I am glad to be spending them here in Baltimore.
This is the birthplace of painted screens, tire planters, John Waters, Thurgood Marshall, Barry Levinson, Cal Ripken, and Frank Zappa. It boasts the lives of Edgar Allen Poe and Frederick Douglass (who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more). It is home to the Visionary Arts Museum, Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, the Peabody Institute, Meyerhoff Hall and the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, the Baltimore Orioles, the National Aquarium, Patterson Park (America's oldest municipal park), Fort McHenry and the Star Spangled Banner, Dangerously Delicious Pies (Mmmm...), the Baltimore Water Taxi, Ostrowski's Polish Sausages, Underarmour, The Pagoda, the Hampden Street Fair, Hons (see: Hairspray), and the Miracle on 34th Street, Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, Herman Heyn the Sidewalk Astronomer, the Cat's Eye Pub (365 nights per year of live music, and 150 yards from where I live), and the world famous Baltimore Farmers' Market and Bazaar. From the 7-mile Harborwalk I know of no city in the US more beautiful.
Yes, we have our problems. Who doesn't? And guess what - the tragic death of Freddy Gray and subsequent street protests (referred to locally as "Baltimore Rising") have resulted in verifiable, quantifiable, positive change (including within myself), just like I prayed for.
Thank you for reprinting that!
My pleasure. I never pass up a prime opportunity to expose the insane as insane, or the fraudulent as the fraudulent.
The most beautiful, wonderful, glorious city that anyone ever justifiably burned to the ground and rioted in. Man, you can't even keep your own BS straight. Some things never change.
And guess what - the tragic death of Freddy Gray and subsequent street protests (referred to locally as "Baltimore Rising") have resulted in verifiable, quantifiable, positive change (including within myself),
Yep. A rising crime rate and a lot of dead people.
On the other hand, since people are waking up, maybe there's some real change coming after all!
Oh, and just as a parting shot: you talk about how great the city is because of your white privilege. If you were a black man, you'd realize it was incredibly flawed, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking highly of things that were all built when it was 97% white.
I mean, I think that's bullshit, but let's be honest: you're one left-wing PoC saying the above to you from making you admit that your city is rotten, has never been beautiful, and needs to change.
You're welcome.
Come visit - I'll gladly show you around. I guarantee your eyes will be opened and you will go away impressed. Who knows, you might even decide to "immigrate" here!
This is addressed to everyone EXCEPT Crude:
I am astonished at Crude's antipathy towards Baltimore. Anyone who has ever bothered to visit this city, even for a short while, will have found the experience to be uplifting, perhaps even soul-changing (and in a good way). I have traveled extensively around the US, and spent time in most of our 50 states. Each one has its charms and its features which are undeniably a source of great pride. Arizona's deserts and the Grand Canyon. The super-dark skies of New Mexico. The otherworldly landscapes of Utah. The mind-blowing horizons of Oklahoma or Kansas. Big Sur. The Outer Banks of North Carolina. Saint Paul, Boston, San Francisco, Savannah - all cities to rival anything you could find find in Europe or Asia (except possibly Florence or Istanbul). But I'd stack Maryland, and especially Baltimore, up against any of them.
I've often thought that Maryland would make a great 1st Primary State, rather than Iowa or New Hampshire. We represent literally everything the rest of the country has to offer (except wilderness) - cities, farmland, small towns, national parks, ocean, mountains, suburbs and urban sprawl, horizon-to-horizon forest, ethnic diversity, great wealth, poverty, families that date back to colonial times and first generation immigrants, deep historical roots and brand new construction, entrepreneurship and government agencies, neither North nor South, a state which stayed loyal to the Union while its entire military class went south to fight alongside Robert E. Lee, a blue state which regularly elects Republican governors. Name me another state in the union that can boast such!
"a state which stayed loyal to the Union while its entire military class went south to fight alongside Robert E. Lee"
Dewd! Maryland "stayed loyal to the Union" because Lincoln rounded up and imprisoned its government ... which just might have some bearing on "its entire military class [subsequently going] south to fight alongside Robert E. Lee"
the execrable (and intellectually dishonest) Vox Day, at the link provided above by the crudé minded individual: "It would be just if the Obamas and Merkels of the world met similar fates at the hands of the refugees they saved."
Oddly enough, some months ago, when I expressed much the same sentiment (*) on this blog toward a leftist apologist for mass Islamic migration to the US and other Western nations, the crudé minded individual couldn't fall all over himself fast enough apologizing (in my place) to that leftist proponent of mass Islamic migration for, as the crudé minded individual put it, my "shitty thing to say".
It's so strange -- I'm constantly simultaneously wrong and right.
(*) I said something along the lines of it being too bad that after importing the Moslems that the leftists insist we must that we couldn't then limit the resulting Islamic head-chopping to said leftist and those of his ilk.
Oh, I knew all about Lincoln's anti-constitutional methods of keeping Maryland in the Union. But it is beyond question that Maryland (with the possible exception of Missouri) was the most divided state of any in 1861. As the war progressed, however, Maryland sentiments turned decisively northward - especially after how shabbily they were treated by Lee's army in his first invasion of the North (leading up to the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg). By the time of Jubal Early's 1864 invasion, he met with nothing but hostility on his way to (what I believe to be the decisive) battle at Monocacy Junction.
Before I moved to Baltimore, my parish church was Saint Paul's in Ellicott City. I was amused to see that one of its century-old stained glass windows was dedicated to Henry Wooton, who was one of Lee's cavalry commanders. Directly across from his window was another, dedicated to Admiral Wyman, who fought for the North. After more than 150 years, they still face off against each other in the nave.
That, by the way, is why it's the Catholic Church. It embraces Northerners and Southerners, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives - political allegiances mean nothing to God.
"That, by the way, is why it's the Catholic Church. It embraces Northerners and Southerners, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives - "
Well, no. The One True Bureaucracy calls itself 'catholic' because it falsely claim to have universal ownership of and dominion over the souls of all men.
" - political allegiances mean nothing to God."
That is a lie, and you know it's a lie -- "A good Christian can be [of certain political persuasions] ... (but not a Capital "C" Communist or an anarchist)."
not yet freed of his leftism: "- political allegiances mean nothing to God."
Tell that to the Jacobins, the National Socialists, and the International Socialists -- good leftists, all.
In truth, what God doesn't give a damn about are the religious bureaucracies -- emphatically including The One True Bureaucracy -- which we imagine can bridle him.
I'll double down here: even a person such as Ilion, who has yet to repudiate Hell's Own Governing Constitution, can be a Child of God.
(And I have great respect for you Ilion. It's just that you are so desperately wrong on 2 or 3 quibbling details.)
Post a Comment