On 2/28/22 9:51 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:54 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 2/27/22 7:06 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
>>>> and AOC, right?
>>>
>>> Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.
>>
>> You know, it's clear that for you saying anything that doesn't fit the
>> Democratic Party's agenda puts one beyond the pale. Well, it doesn't.
>> BTW, I do know what CRT is and I think what Dorothy Parker said about
>> 'Atlas Shrugged' should apply to CRT and to the '1619 Project'.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Let's get back on track. You don't seem to know what socialism is. Or you choose to talk about it in a a markedly ignorant way. But in that you carry on the long tradition of the Republican party, which has been far more interested in the potential of "socialism" as a negative PR tool than in any facts about it. Republicans have always opposed nearly every social program that could help people by claiming the programs were socialist and that they would make the country socialist. Social security, Medicare, you name it. They said the same thing about the Affordable Care Act, ignoring its market basis. Did we become socialist? No. We remain one of the least socialist advanced economies in the world, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> That you respond to my comments by taking gratuitous swipes at CRT and the "1619 Project" - neither of which can turn you into a socialist - suggests to me that your chief interest isn't facts, or information, but doing your part for the culture war. And that is what has set me off in the past with your posts: the simple, damning swipes. I can't even imagine being able to talk that way, to be so quickly and strongly judgmental.
>
> I don't think you know much about CRT, either. It is absolutely not a narrative about white people being bad and black people being good. In fact, there is a lot in it that suggest the limits of any political movement that aspires to be transformational. CRT might instead inspire the realistic, inch-by-inch steps toward progress and equality that would appeal to everyone. In this, conservatives might find a lot the embrace if they weren't so eager to mischaracterize CRT and slaughter it for their political profit. Perhaps I'm missing how difficult it might be for some conservatives. Myself, I don't really think that anyone is going to be hurt much by hearing a variety of voices, even if some leaders act like white people are fragile and in need of protection. Here's a good story about some of that:
> https://mississippitoday.org/2022/02/02/mississippi-only-critical-race-theory/
>
>
>
>
>
Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
superior, that's your problem, not mine.

Bob Harper

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:51:36 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/28/22 10:39 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> (snip) If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering
> Putin on?
>
> Do you mean that as a serious comment? If you do, I think you'rre nuts.
>
> Bob Harper

Let's not forget Trump's record with Ukraine. If he couldn't use the country for some selfish purpose, he couldn't give a flip:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/01/vindman-zelensky-ukraine-putin/
And don't you dare pull the ol "but the liberal media!" crap. Facts are facts.

On 3/1/2022 3:51 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/28/22 10:39 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> (snip) If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering Putin on?
>
> Do you mean that as a serious comment? If you do, I think you'rre nuts.
>
> Bob Harper

There is SO much to criticize and revile in Trump, yet their logic says that "Putin is smart" = "I am glad Putin invaded Ukraine."

I am not saying that there isn't something weird about for a former POTUS and future aspiring POTUS to have make his first public statement on the invasion of Ukraine be "Putin is smart."

But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind of like verbal stream of consciousness.

On 3/1/2022 3:56 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/28/22 9:51 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:54 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 2/27/22 7:06 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
>>>>> and AOC, right?
>>>>
>>>> Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.
>>>
>>> You know, it's clear that for you saying anything that doesn't fit the
>>> Democratic Party's agenda puts one beyond the pale. Well, it doesn't.
>>> BTW, I do know what CRT is and I think what Dorothy Parker said about
>>> 'Atlas Shrugged' should apply to CRT and to the '1619 Project'.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>>
>> Let's get back on track. You don't seem to know what socialism is. Or you choose to talk about it in a a markedly ignorant way. But in that you carry on the long tradition of the Republican party, which has been far more interested in the potential of "socialism" as a negative PR tool than in any facts about it. Republicans have always opposed nearly every social program that could help people by claiming the programs were socialist and that they would make the country socialist. Social security, Medicare, you name it. They said the same thing about the Affordable Care Act, ignoring its market basis. Did we become socialist? No. We remain one of the least socialist advanced economies in the world, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>> That you respond to my comments by taking gratuitous swipes at CRT and the "1619 Project" - neither of which can turn you into a socialist - suggests to me that your chief interest isn't facts, or information, but doing your part for the culture war. And that is what has set me off in the past with your posts: the simple, damning swipes. I can't even imagine being able to talk that way, to be so quickly and strongly judgmental.
>>
>> I don't think you know much about CRT, either. It is absolutely not a narrative about white people being bad and black people being good. In fact, there is a lot in it that suggest the limits of any political movement that aspires to be transformational. CRT might instead inspire the realistic, inch-by-inch steps toward progress and equality that would appeal to everyone. In this, conservatives might find a lot the embrace if they weren't so eager to mischaracterize CRT and slaughter it for their political profit. Perhaps I'm missing how difficult it might be for some conservatives. Myself, I don't really think that anyone is going to be hurt much by hearing a variety of voices, even if some leaders act like white people are fragile and in need of protection. Here's a good story about some of that:
>> https://mississippitoday.org/2022/02/02/mississippi-only-critical-race-theory/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel superior, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> Bob Harper

Don't worry, Bob, there is likely an apology coming down the road. That's is MO.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
> from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
> superior, that's your problem, not mine.
> Bob Harper

Lord knows I can't know you if your presence here is so superficial. I don't write here to show you I know you personally, and I won't bother to act like it's any defense to say "you don't know me, either". That's not the point. The point is that you talk about socialism, CRT and the "1619 Project" like someone who is proud of his ignorance.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 3:51 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 2/28/22 10:39 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > (snip) If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering Putin on?
> >
> > Do you mean that as a serious comment? If you do, I think you'rre nuts.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> There is SO much to criticize and revile in Trump, yet their logic says that "Putin is smart" = "I am glad Putin invaded Ukraine."
>
> I am not saying that there isn't something weird about for a former POTUS and future aspiring POTUS to have make his first public statement on the invasion of Ukraine be "Putin is smart."
>
> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind of like verbal stream of consciousness.

Do you think I should have any concern for the idea that he or another MAGA operator should be president again? Seems like the question is "how seriously should we take the Donald?" And your answer is a shrug.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:22:50 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Don't worry, Bob, there is likely an apology coming down the road. That's his MO.

Shrug!

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:22:52 PM UTC-6, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> > Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
> > from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
> > superior, that's your problem, not mine.
> > Bob Harper
> Lord knows I can't know you if your presence here is so superficial. I don't write here to show you I know you personally, and I won't bother to act like it's any defense to say "you don't know me, either". That's not the point.

Let me rephrase this.
1. The idea of socialism that you express is a nebulous cartoon
2. You apply it to things things that have nothing to do with socialism
3. This matches the rhetoric of the Republican party- more than 85 years of hyperventilating nonsense where the idea of 'socialism" is concerned.

On 3/1/22 1:22 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
>> from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
>> superior, that's your problem, not mine.
>> Bob Harper
>
> Lord knows I can't know you if your presence here is so superficial. I don't write here to show you I know you personally, and I won't bother to act like it's any defense to say "you don't know me, either". That's not the point. The point is that you talk about socialism, CRT and the "1619 Project" like someone who is proud of his ignorance.

Well, my comment about making ignorant and insulting judgments is
certainly confirmed.

Bob Harper

On 3/1/22 1:34 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:22:52 PM UTC-6, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
>>> from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
>>> superior, that's your problem, not mine.
>>> Bob Harper
>> Lord knows I can't know you if your presence here is so superficial. I don't write here to show you I know you personally, and I won't bother to act like it's any defense to say "you don't know me, either". That's not the point.
>
> Let me rephrase this.
> 1. The idea of socialism that you express is a nebulous cartoon
> 2. You apply it to things things that have nothing to do with socialism
> 3. This matches the rhetoric of the Republican party- more than 85 years of hyperventilating nonsense where the idea of 'socialism" is concerned.

Michael, please learn the First Rule of Holes. It will help you.

Bob Harper

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind
> of like verbal stream of consciousness.

Fair enough, but do you want someone who
acts on his/her instincts and "verbal stream
of consciousness" (and narcissism) to be in
the White House ?!?

dk

On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 21:49:50 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
> Michael, please learn the First Rule of Holes. It will help you.
> > Bob Harper

It would certainly help Putin....

But he's more of a Resistentialist - objects that cause problems are said to exhibit a high degree of malice toward humans. Or loosely "les choses sont contre nous"

On 3/1/2022 4:27 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 3:51 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 2/28/22 10:39 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> (snip) If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering Putin on?
>>>
>>> Do you mean that as a serious comment? If you do, I think you'rre nuts.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> There is SO much to criticize and revile in Trump, yet their logic says that "Putin is smart" = "I am glad Putin invaded Ukraine."
>>
>> I am not saying that there isn't something weird about for a former POTUS and future aspiring POTUS to have make his first public statement on the invasion of Ukraine be "Putin is smart."
>>
>> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind of like verbal stream of consciousness.
>
> Do you think I should have any concern for the idea that he or another MAGA operator should be president again? Seems like the question is "how seriously should we take the Donald?" And your answer is a shrug.

I didn't vote for Trump, would never vote for Trump. I've said that many times before. If he is elected in 2024, I won't panic. He will be gone after 4 years.

It is also not likely I would vote for a different Republican nominee, though I suppose it is possible. The last time I did so was 1980. No that's wrong. I voted for Romney in 2012 because I was angry the Maryland Libertarian party nominated two rabidly anti-Israel candidates for the Senate and House races and took that out on the Libertarian presidential candidate (who had nothing to do with that).

Op 2022-03-02 om 00:19 schreef Frank Berger:

>
> I didn't vote for Trump, would never vote for Trump. I've said that many
> times before.

So booooooooooooring!

On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:22:52 PM UTC-6, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:57:00 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> Well, I don't think you know much about me, but that doesn't prevent you
>>> from making ignorant and insulting judgments. If that makes you feel
>>> superior, that's your problem, not mine.
>>> Bob Harper
>> Lord knows I can't know you if your presence here is so superficial. I don't write here to show you I know you personally, and I won't bother to act like it's any defense to say "you don't know me, either". That's not the point.
>
> Let me rephrase this.
> 1. The idea of socialism that you express is a nebulous cartoon
> 2. You apply it to things things that have nothing to do with socialism
> 3. This matches the rhetoric of the Republican party- more than 85 years of hyperventilating nonsense where the idea of 'socialism" is concerned.

OK, so right wingers often say "socialism" when they mean "big government." Not precisely correct, but big deal. Socialism mean government ownership of the means of production, wherein response to market forces is inhibited. Government-operated single payer insurance, while not implying the nation in which it is implemented is socialist, is nevertheless "socialistic," to coin a phrase, perhaps.

If I were to say that no socialist government has ever been successful in bringing peace and prosperity to its people, and that socialist governments seem to remain in power only by terrorizing its citizens, would you disagree?

On 3/1/2022 4:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind
>> of like verbal stream of consciousness.
>
> Fair enough, but do you want someone who
> acts on his/her instincts and "verbal stream
> of consciousness" (and narcissism) to be in
> the White House ?!?
>
> dk

For the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Trump, did not consider doing so, and would never consider doing so. Though I might add I care a lot more about a President's policies than his personality. Up to a point.

You can come over and search my closets. You will not find a MAGA hat or t-shirt anywhere. The only hats I own are baseball caps of W. Tresper Clarke High School, UCLA, the Universiy of Wisconsin (my alma maters), the Rand Corporation and Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (my former employers, though I have zero chauvinism for the latter), and a Zahal hat.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:45:39 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 4:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind
> >> of like verbal stream of consciousness.
> >
> > Fair enough, but do you want someone who
> > acts on his/her instincts and "verbal stream
> > of consciousness" (and narcissism) to be in
> > the White House ?!?
>
> For the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Trump,

I did not imply or suggest you did.
Just asked a hypothetical question.
You are overeacting.

dk

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:49:50 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> Michael, please learn the First Rule of Holes. It will help you.
> Bob Harper

From the guy who told me this was about me feeling superior. Thanks, bud.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:27:46 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> OK, so right wingers often say "socialism" when they mean "big government.." Not precisely correct, but big deal.

I'll give you points for being quite easygoing about almost everything these days. As for myself, there's a big difference between socialism and big government, and the Republican Party has made a sustained effort to make sure that their base doesn't know the difference.

>Socialism mean government ownership of the means of production, wherein response to market forces is inhibited. Government-operated single payer insurance, while not implying the nation in which it is implemented is socialist, is nevertheless "socialistic," to coin a phrase, perhaps.

That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.

> If I were to say that no socialist government has ever been successful in bringing peace and prosperity to its people, and that socialist governments seem to remain in power only by terrorizing its citizens, would you disagree?

I actually tend to agree, which is another reason I find calling all solutions relating to universal healthcare "socialist" to be stupid and cruel.

On 3/1/2022 7:02 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:45:39 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 4:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind
>>>> of like verbal stream of consciousness.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but do you want someone who
>>> acts on his/her instincts and "verbal stream
>>> of consciousness" (and narcissism) to be in
>>> the White House ?!?
>>
>> For the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Trump,
>
> I did not imply or suggest you did.
> Just asked a hypothetical question.
> You are overeacting.
>
> dk

My answer speaks for itself, especially the part you cut.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:34:09 PM UTC-6, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:27:46 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> > OK, so right wingers often say "socialism" when they mean "big government." Not precisely correct, but big deal.
> I'll give you points for being quite easygoing about almost everything these days. As for myself, there's a big difference between socialism and big government, and the Republican Party has made a sustained effort to make sure that their base doesn't know the difference.
> >Socialism mean government ownership of the means of production, wherein response to market forces is inhibited. Government-operated single payer insurance, while not implying the nation in which it is implemented is socialist, is nevertheless "socialistic," to coin a phrase, perhaps.
> That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
> > If I were to say that no socialist government has ever been successful in bringing peace and prosperity to its people, and that socialist governments seem to remain in power only by terrorizing its citizens, would you disagree?
> I actually tend to agree, which is another reason I find calling all solutions relating to universal healthcare "socialist" to be stupid and cruel.

Let me just append this by saying that Obamacare was also called "socialist". Yet an objective analysis of healthcare costs would show that creating a healthcare system to cover the uninsured would save all of us money and encourage greater personal responsibility by those who had the means to better take care of themselves. And yet the Republican party tried to repeal ObamaCare dozens of times- why, really? There's no good reason, only a reflexive horror at the ability of the government to solve problems and give Democrats a "win".
https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/calling-obamacare-socialism-makes-sense-analysis/story?id=20435162

I'm not saying Obamacare is perfect or that there aren't plenty of things in it that should be improved. But it is better than what we had before and met needs that no version of the Obamacare repeal ever addressed, even though Trump repeatedly lied about the party having solutions for what they wanted to take away. They never had it, they never proposed it, and it never existed. Like so much of the Trump presidency, it was all about destroying something, nothing more.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/a-republican-told-paul-ryan-that-obamacare-saved-his-life.html

In any case, the use of "socialism" to criticize Obamacare was about making sure people didn't get real information, that real discussions were never had. You want something I find dangerous and despicable, that's it.

On 3/1/22 4:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> But that's the sort of thing he does. Kind
>> of like verbal stream of consciousness.
>
> Fair enough, but do you want someone who
> acts on his/her instincts and "verbal stream
> of consciousness" (and narcissism) to be in
> the White House ?!?

Last November, just less than half of the voters in the country did.

-Owen

In article <3a830641-ba36-4e3f-900f-d570e7f67804n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yet an objective analysis of healthcare costs would show that
>creating a healthcare system to cover the uninsured would save all
>of us money ....

People seem to forget that the biggest fact calling for healthcare
reform in the 1990s, which of course took forever with all the
nonsense dragged into it, was that in the US, we paid more per
capita for healthcare than anywhere else -- despite having so many
people without coverage, and generally poor results in so many
places.

Of course, one thing the Obama "compromise" ended up abandoning was
any concept of cost control.... Healthcare stocks shot up the
moment it passed.

Anyway, I don't use the largely meaningless term "socialism."

On 3/1/2022 9:34 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:27:46 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> OK, so right wingers often say "socialism" when they mean "big government." Not precisely correct, but big deal.
>
> I'll give you points for being quite easygoing about almost everything these days. As for myself, there's a big difference between socialism and big government, and the Republican Party has made a sustained effort to make sure that their base doesn't know the difference.
>
>> Socialism mean government ownership of the means of production, wherein response to market forces is inhibited. Government-operated single payer insurance, while not implying the nation in which it is implemented is socialist, is nevertheless "socialistic," to coin a phrase, perhaps.
>
> That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
>

Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.

>> If I were to say that no socialist government has ever been successful in bringing peace and prosperity to its people, and that socialist governments seem to remain in power only by terrorizing its citizens, would you disagree?
>
> I actually tend to agree, which is another reason I find calling all solutions relating to universal healthcare "socialist" to be stupid and cruel.

Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> > That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
> >
> Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.

It's both- I'm not in denial.

> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?

Yep, let's hear the rational reasons why having a better-insured population with easier access to medical care actually hurts us. Any takers?