Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Today's dumbass quote comes from a new commenter who has found Dispatches. He calls himself Captain Patriot, which I think gives you a clear indication of what we're dealing with here. The quote that jumped out at me:
The latest thing i have seen as treason is the damned healthcare bill. It makes slaves out of us and no sane person seems to care.
Perhaps because only insane people agree with this idiotic statement. The healthcare reform bill may very well be a bad idea. But to claim that it is going to make a slave out of you is just plain stupid. After it passes (if it passes), you will not be a slave. And to claim that you will be is an insult to the millions of people who have been (and in parts of the world still are) slaves.
Politics
Comments
Captain Patriot: The brainwashed son of CAAAAPPPTAIINNN CAAAVVVVEEEEEMMMMAAAAAANNNNNN!
You cannot spell Patriot without riot or Pat. Wonder if those two are related?
And of course being in Canada; I have yet to be a slave to anyone. Except to my own destiny; but that is neither here nor there.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | November 24, 2009 9:27 AM
What do you expect from a guy who calls himself "Captain Patriot" and openly wishes the South had succeeded in tearing our country apart? (If the South had won, would "Captain Patriot" be wearing a cape while keeping unpatriotic slaves in line?)
What a jucking foke. This asshat isn't called "Captain Pee" for nothing.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 9:33 AM
I think there was a Marvel Comics character named Captain Patriot. His powers waxed and waned with the level of patriotism in the country.
Posted by: Paul Lamb | November 24, 2009 9:39 AM
And Captain Patriot, displaying his supreme love of country, devotes his time to bemoaning fake consequences to a bill that has yet to be finalized. He's like a modern day Paul Revere!
Posted by: Tweedster | November 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Some other regular on this blog made a comment worth repeating:
GWB pushed for torture, warrentless wiretaps, detaining people without trial or even formal charges, and illegal warfare. Obama seems to be continuing these policies. So when it comes to decrying policies that will lead to totalitarian government, the freedom loving patriots choose...health care reform.
WTF indeed.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 24, 2009 10:01 AM
I suppose Capt. P's reference to slavery is one he has mixed emotions about. He can't imagine his own sorry ass as a slave but doesn't think it was such a bad idea in general. Just another southern boy goin' to 'splain how the slaves liked bein slaves and were so much better off under massa.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 24, 2009 10:01 AM
Imagine if Paul Revere went riding every time the MA legislature did something he didn't like. The Minutemen aren't going to rally when Boston passes the 'no lead paint on your wagon' law.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 24, 2009 10:17 AM
Captain Patriot,
In case you were a bit rusty on the definition of treason, the U.S. constitution provides it for you in Art.III,Sec.3:
Now please, show me how launching a new government health care initiative, no matter how ineffectual or how expensive, could be construed as treason.
Posted by: DaveL | November 24, 2009 11:20 AM
Hmm. This has the smell of attempted satire. Ed, is it possible you have fallen victim to Poe's Law?
Posted by: Jack | November 24, 2009 11:35 AM
Personally I'm not convinced that Captain Patriot isn't a Poe. His combination of ridiculously contradictory labels, counterintuitive arguments, and conflicting reich wing arguments strikes me as just too over-the-top to be legitimate.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 24, 2009 11:41 AM
This is indeed a silly statement. After all, it will take at least another 10 years for the master plan of dismantling private health care to come to fruition and then the real servitude begins.
Posted by: Mike H | November 24, 2009 11:49 AM
Wouldn't the CSA rebellion, which Captain P thinks was a good thing count as 'levying War against them'? Who commited treason again?
Posted by: Matty | November 24, 2009 11:52 AM
I can think of at least two other dumbasses, not including Pat, who have recently stumbled onto Dispatches (one of whom has derailed several threads). Who opened the floodgates??
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 12:01 PM
Mike H:
Are Canadians "slaves"? How about the British? The French? Every other industrialized democracy in the western world has some form of universal health care. Are they all "slaves"? Of course not. Only if you broaden the definition out so ridiculously that it diminishes the reality of slavery. You might as well claim we're all going to be "concentration camp victims." This kind of ridiculously exaggerated rhetoric only makes you look silly; it doesn't budge reality one bit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 24, 2009 12:03 PM
I seem to recall a time last year when Rush Limbaugh was dubbed Super Patriot, which inspired me to create the image. I thought I'd be kind enough to do something similar for our new friend. I was having visions of eventually building a whole rightwing super group. I'd call them, The Just Us League(liberals, gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, and anyone not just like us need not apply). But then I discovered my Photoshop skills were completely superfluous in the case of Captain Patriot.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 12:06 PM
As a supporter of free markets, I am opposed to moving toward a Canadian/European style health care system. I believe that it will not control costs, except by simply reducing fees, and will create even more red tape. The end result, as it has been for Canada, will be to make medicine a less attractive profession. Feel free to argue with those issue, but that's not my main point.
My point is that despite my free-market opposition to even the not-at-all-Euro-style health care reform the Democrats are trying to pass, I recognize that going all the way to a Euro-style system will not result in Americans being slaves.
We'll still be able to choose our own employers. We'll still be able to buy and sell property. We'll still be free to pick up and move from one state to another (heck, that will actually be easier, without the fear of losing health insurance).
So even this health-care reform opponent calls Captain Patriot and Mike H. morons. They don't have a principled opposition, because they don't have enough basic understanding of the principles at play to actually make any intellectual use of them. They can yell "slavery" early and often, and it will scare those folks who are already in their choir, but they are incapable of understanding that people of real intelligence, people who are capable of even moderately serious analysis, will only recognize them for the fools they are.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 12:26 PM
I live in Tennessee. At least they are honest, I guess but here is the general take I hear from folks around here.
"We ain't paying for health care for niggers."
Just a little glimpse of my world for ya.
Posted by: DuggleBogey | November 24, 2009 12:29 PM
@ 17 -
Bingo. That's exactly what it comes down to. So much for "Christian love" in a "Christian nation."
Posted by: Sonik | November 24, 2009 12:40 PM
In fairness, Cpt. Pee isn't using the word slavery any differently than the Stamp Act protesters did. Although it was over-the-top ridiculous then (Samuel Johnson: "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?") and it's even more over-the-top ridiculous now.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 24, 2009 12:46 PM
How about the British?
They are subjects. Not sure how close that is to a slave, but recent stories about the police surveillance state there makes me wonder how much of a difference it is.
Posted by: Juice | November 24, 2009 2:04 PM
In fairness, Cpt. Pee isn't using the word slavery any differently than the Stamp Act protesters did.
Really. The revolutionaries were a bunch of teabagging morons. They even carried around those stupid yellow flags.
Posted by: Juice | November 24, 2009 2:06 PM
DuggleBogey:
""We ain't paying for health care for niggers.""
They are, actually, paying for everybody's healthcare; by way of insurance premiums, taxes and out-of-pocket co-pays, the costs are levelled. Otherwise the hospitals and doctors would simply go out of business.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 2:07 PM
In fairness, Cpt. Pee isn't using the word "slavery" any differently than most of did when we were in grade-school and didn't like our parents telling us to clean up our rooms and take out the trash.
There, fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 2:15 PM
There is a great case to be made that universal healthcare actually gives people far more freedom in their lives than the current US system.
I have lost count of the number of American friends and acquaintances who have either been reluctant to change jobs, or unable to start their own business, or even have had to leave a job they loved to find another one, all because of the fear of being without a good health insurance plan for them and their family.
Contrast that with the experience of my friends and family in the UK. My brother-in-law has started three accountancy businesses during his career. The first two failed but now he his successful. Not for one moment has he had worry about providing good health insurance while raising a family of three kids, even though at times money was very short.
My brother got tired of his regular job and quit to become his own boss -- a contractor -- and at the very same time his wife was starting up her own business, all while raising two children. Again, the business suffered set backs, but since there were never any medical bills to worry about, they could afford to try again without one of them having to find a job with good health insurance. Now that my sis-in-law has a thriving business (most of which is with the States, btw) with 24 employees, she can keep her costs down because she doesn't have to provide any health benefits for her staff.
American entrepreneurs and small business should be clamoring universal healthcare, it would allow them more freedom to take more risks since it removes risking the very lives and health of their families. Of course, the private sector doesn't go away (you can still get good -- and cheap -- private health insurance in the UK if you want it, and some UK companies provide it as a benefit) so you can have the best of both worlds if you can afford to pay for it.
Americans who are stuck in jobs because of the healthcare benefits it provides are far more like slaves than their counterparts in the UK and other countries with universal coverage.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 2:18 PM
Of course, one should always point out that any country that incarcerates between five and seven times more of its citizens than any other democratic nation of Earth can hardly be considered a bastion of freedom these days, no matter what type of healthcare system it has.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 2:21 PM
One of the big arguments about public health care is that is would eliminate peoples "freedom to choose". As health care currently stands, most people's choices tend be one of the following:
1) Death by disease.
2) Death by penury.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 24, 2009 2:23 PM
Americans who are stuck in jobs because of the healthcare benefits it provides are far more like slaves than their counterparts in the UK and other countries with universal coverage.
In my more paranoid moments, I suspect that many employers oppose public health-insurance because, deep down, they WANT that extra measure of control over their employees.
In a previous thread -- back in July or August, IIRC -- someone cited an article stating that small business accounted for a larger portion of the economies (or GDPs) of nations that had public health-insurance. The conclusion was that since the government forced EVERYONE to share the costs of public health, small employers' share of said costs was much smaller, and thus small businesses had more money left over for, you know, their business.
As health care currently stands, most people's choices tend be one of the following:
1) Death by disease.
2) Death by penury.
And even that "choice" tends to be exaggerated by right-wing propagandists.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 2:35 PM
To Dugglebogey's point @ 17:
I saw a report last week (forgot where), which discovered a new shared talking point amongst conservatives: That the federal government (read "Obama the black guy") is raping us. One conservative talking head, I forgot which one, compared Americans to a virginal girl just to make sure the implied metaphor was grasped.
If I see this meme pop-up again I'll report back in this forum.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 3:02 PM
I'll bet Captain Pee's truck is covered with Confederate flag stickers - the obvious sign of all real AmeriKKKans.
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 24, 2009 3:07 PM
I know this one!
I've been following him around on Digg for months, replying to his stupid comments and burying him.
He probably found this blog by googling my name. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | November 24, 2009 3:13 PM
Here's a list of countries by their "friendliness" to small businesses. Not surprisingly the U.S. is near the top (but second to New Zealand), with Canada close behind. Unsurprisingly, the lower part of the list is populated with less developed countries (a cause and effect relationship for sure, see Hernando de Soto's The Other Path, on the difficulty of setting up businesses in Peru). But we also see some well-developed countries with national health care outside the top 20, such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands.
So it doesn't really look, from what little data I can find, that national health care is strongly correlated with small business.
Sidenotes:
1) The top 8 are all former British colonies, plus the UK itself. That suggests the strongest causal factor there is the British influence.
2) For what it's worth, the Small Business Administration estimates small business's share of U.S. GDP as being roughly steady over time at around 50%. I often hear that "the American dream is dead," but if so, we would expect to see that portion diminishing.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 3:16 PM
@Juice
nope the British aint subjects. Got binned off in the 80s i believe certainly before i was old enough to care about it. The Police state is overrated as well although the random passing of dubious laws is a concern it isnt really anything more than the problems faced in the USA
Posted by: kevinj | November 24, 2009 3:20 PM
It is put to the American right that there's government-run healthcare in many countries where it gives great results for the patient and in no way impinges on their freedom?
Again, the rest of the developed world watches on in amazement...
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2009 3:30 PM
James H., did you consider how bad the situation is for small businesses to actually afford insurance? My dad has a small law practice, and his premiums for his shitty insurance are insanely high. He could afford to do a lot more with his business if his health insurance costs were anywhere near as low as big businesses get. I get your point about small businesses not paying for it, so it's not a cost, but the thing is, big business SAVES lots of money by providing health insurance instead of higher wages, right? Not to mention that health insurance is somewhat of a necessity, so saying they don't have to pay for it doesn't factor in how much we all pay for those without insurance.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | November 24, 2009 3:36 PM
James Hanley has it exactly right and makes the point that I've been trying to make for a long time. There are reasonable arguments against health care reform, especially as it's being done right now (we're going to end up with a ridiculous, self-contradictory, mishmash of a system that makes little sense at all - just as we nearly always do in this country because of lobbyist influence). The problem is that the right wing isn't making those arguments, they're leaping to the most ridiculous, batshit crazy Nazi and slavery comparisons. That's been the story of the last 10 months on issue after issue, where there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made against Obama's policies but time after time the opposition is reaching instead for the most insane and overblown arguments - health care reform is just like Hitler, Obama wants the terrorists to win, he's an illegal alien out to destroy America, Khalid Sheik Mohammed is going to be driving your kids to school if we give him a trial in the United States, and on and on and on. It's getting downright surreal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 24, 2009 3:39 PM
I find statements like this only slightly less absurd than the statement that nationalized health care is slavery. Both are false because they claim an absolute that does not in fact exist.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 3:41 PM
I completely agree. The weird thing is that a lot of wingnuts will cry about being slaves to the government, but they're perfectly content with being slaves to their employers. For some reason, corporations get tons of free passes. Some people will say "Oh, you can just quit your job if you don't like it", but you could also move to another country if you don't like this one, and that's about as realistic as people just quitting jobs, especially in this economy. I've even known a few people who want things to go back to they were in the early 20th century, when factory workers died and suffered health problems because of working conditions. They think that corporations should have the freedom to endanger children and let people burn in fires because they don't want to build enough exits. It seems they care more about corporate freedom than individual freedom. These people called themselves "Libertarians".
Posted by: catgirl | November 24, 2009 3:45 PM
Rob,
Economically speaking, big businesses don't save by providing healthcare instead of higher wages. In a perfect market (the great hypothetical), the costs will be the same for the business. If there's no bennies, employees would demand the exact equivalent in wages, and vice versa. I suppose the same argument would apply to small businesses, too, which perhaps undermines part of my argument above.
And keep in mind that it's hard for small businesses to afford health insurance because we don't, contrary to popular rhetoric, actually have a free market in health care. Look at any good provided by a competitive market, and you'll see that prices go down even as innovation expands. That's because multiple suppliers are fighting with each other for customers. We don't have that in health care, so I think it's plausible to discuss the possibility of making policies that shift us toward more of a competitive market in that, to take advantage of the process of suppliers fighting each other.
And the market does work well for health care, where it's actually in place. Look at the proliferation of inexpensive eye exam shops in shopping malls and stores like Sears. Look at what happens to the price of pharmaceuticals once the patent runs out. Look at what Wal Mart did with the price of many pharmaceuticals, and consider the trend they could be starting with the opening of clinics in their stores.
But I don't really want to make this an argument against national health care because when push comes to shove, it's simply not the worst thing that could happen to the U.S. (compared to what happens under the right-wingers), and would be helpful to many who are not as fortunate as I am (so I feel a bit churlish arguing too loudly in favor of an alternative future that may never be allowed to happen, leaving poor people in their current distressing position).
My real point on this thread is to critique the bad arguments on both sides, because--as is so often the case--the health care debate has descended into a malestrom of overbroad claims that can't be taken seriously at face value. (Which is not to imply that your comment was of that type, as it certainly wasn't.)
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 4:09 PM
Well, first it's important to say that no system is perfect. The British NHS has plenty of flaws (though not as many as it once did) and does make mistakes, obviously. Having said that, my parents, both approaching 80, have never been denied treatment of any kind and are extremely well taken care of by the British NHS -- and my Dad is a bit of a hypochondriac! He may need surgery to unblock the arteries in his legs at some point, and there is no question that he will get it well into his 80s unless his general health is too poor to risk surgery.
The end of life debate is somewhat skewed in the US by the colossal (and unsustainable) amount of money the American system pays out for treating patients in their last two months of life -- 50 billion dollars a year, which is more than the total Homeland Security budget and much of which is paid for by the American taxpayer. This was discussed at length in this week's 60 Minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/60minutes/main5711689.shtml
As the piece says, the current state of affairs makes any sensible discussion of reducing unnecessary costs in this area sound like there are going to be death panels, so nothing gets done and the hole just gets deeper.
There is, obviously, a middle ground where money can be saved without shortening people's lives when they are still able to enjoy them, and there are plenty of other types of universal health care systems to chose from, not just the NHS. The French model is often upheld by as the best of breed, so perhaps that's the way to go.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 4:16 PM
Another useful data point for this debate can be found on the Heritage Foundation's website (not exactly the bastion of liberal thought!):
http://www.heritage.org/Index/
This is their "Index of Economic Freedom" which ranks all the countries in the world based on 10 different measures of economic freedom.
And if you look at the Top 10 list what do you find? Only one country out of the top 10 in the world that doesn't have universal healthcare of some kind. In fact Denmark, a mere tick behind the US in economic freedom has an individual tax burden of almost 50% and yet is as free as America is to all intents and purposes (the US tax burden is only about 28%).
Kind of puts the healthcare debate into perspective.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 4:23 PM
I should have added that one of the 10 measures the Heritage Foundation uses is the speed and ease of which a person can create their own business. Most of the top countries really don't have much difficult in this regard.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 4:26 PM
Hanley: sorry, I was unable to find the thread in which that graph was cited. The cite came in reference to public healthcare vs. burdens for small businesses, but that doesn't mean it came in a thread that was originally about that subject. For all I know, it could have come in one of those "Dumbass Quote of the Day" posts, since so many dumbass quotes have been about healthcare policy lately.
Basically, the information in the graph did not conclusively support any statement about the impact of public healthcare on small business; it did, however, IMHO, kinda complicate the right-wingers' simpleminded picture of "socialized medicine" destroying capitalism. Even if a public healthcare system did place an added net burden on small businesses, it was a change that could apparently be easily offset by other factors.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 4:48 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 5:02 PM
As previously noted, I'd prefer to see more effort put into enhancing the role of the market in health care, rather than move the opposite direction.
How about using some sort of "public option" as a means to force real competition, much like the USPS forces private competitors such as FedEx to live up to at least a certain minmum standard of service in order to stay relevant?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 5:10 PM
Also, instead of giving up on government healthcare altogether, we really need, as tacitus indicated (#39), to take a much closer and more honest look at other countries' healthcare systems than we're doing now. They're not all the same, and I strongly suspect they're beneficial to their people in ways the far right and their media crack-whores don't want us to see or understand.
Despite all the noise and hysteria from the anti-public-option set, the voices in favor of public healthcare are being heard more than they were in the '80s. I really think there's something in this debate that some very powerful reactionaries are deliberately trying to shout down and hide.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 5:21 PM
Bee,
I dispute the validity of your example. I think it's UPS and DHL (until they recently pulled out of the U.S.) that force FedEx to maintain standards of service, not the USPS. Rather, it's been those companies that have forced USPS to mimic their services, so as to stay relevant for anything other than third class bulk mail. Had USPS been sufficient, FedEx would never have become a viable business.
I do find it odd that you apparently accept the claim that competition can force companies to perform (as I accept that in the absence of competition, companies will not perform up to minimum standards), but don't think the competition will come from the market--rather, it can only come from the government. Which is quite ironic, in that only government corporations can protect themselves from competition--as the USPS is protected by law from competition in first-class mail.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 5:23 PM
Oh, and in response to tacitus and your #45, I agree. I think we're going to get it, sooner or later. I'm quite resigned to the fact that I'm fighting a losing battle. And since we are likely to have it, we should indeed compare other systems and try to select the best. (I've heard good things about Singapore's system, for example.)
Unfortunately, our political system is not exactly set up to promote selection of the best as a probable outcome.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 5:26 PM
Look, can't we just compromise on this healthcare thing?
Let's put together the GOP's idea that everybody should pay their own way and the DNC's idea that we should have "Death Panels". Lets set the death panels up so that when somebody makes over, say, $5,000,000 a year that they have experienced life to its fullest and that it's time for them to go, making room for other strivers.
Sorry, Rush, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, most pro athletes, Dick Cheney.....
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 5:40 PM
As much as I am an advocate for universal healthcare, I am as much aware of the likelihood that the Democrats will manage to screw things up royally -- mostly by trying to placate people who have no real interest in health care reform in the first place (which dovetails quite nicely with the filibuster discussion going on in that other thread today).
Sadly, I suspect it will take many more years and more fiscal disasters for the US to emerge with a sensible and affordable system.
Posted by: tacitus | November 24, 2009 5:44 PM
Well. It's nice that the grand "journalist" has noticed me. I sense much fear in him. Usually when a liberal calls the dogs on their archenemy, they have become desperate. Let it be known though that I fear no man and fear no tyranny. I am a free man, a soveriegn citizen of a soverign country, not a slave to government or to leftist socialism or any other related evil.
Any leftist that tells you that this healthcare bill will improve our situation is LIAR and thief. This bill WILL makes slaves out of us before the end. Look at the freedoms people have in England with NICE. This watchdog mini-dictatorship that is supposed to help control costs actually costs lives with their facist death loving ideology. How many countless lives have been thrown away becuase the health services refused to pay for a life saving treatment there? It happens in Canada too.
It will not happen here. If I or a family member needs an operation down the road and the government run "health" system refuses the surgery, screw 'em. We'll have the surgery any way. I ask teh doctor to bill the government system; if they refuse to pay, screw em. It's not my problem. That probably won't happen since people will die waitng in line for the operation to begin with.
I await the day that aliens land in my back yard and ask me to take them to our leader. With a simple smile, I will reply : "See the nice liberals making speeches around the world about how much he hates his own country and how his country is selfish, arrogant, and evil becuase it defends itself against people wanting to blow it off the face of the earth? That is our leader. Are you really sure you want to meet him. He''l probably just put a tax on your flying saucer for causing more global warming ands you'll end up on the IRS most wanted list or on the White House hit list. Well, I'll only introduce you to him if you agree to probe him well. "
Man, that day can't come fast enough. Better yet and more possibility of it happening, I hope an asteroid hits 30 on teh exact second this illegal and immorral and evil socialism bill is signed into law.
Maybe then the survivors will be free from tyranny.
Mr. Ed Brayton has notice little me. What can I say? I am honored, but don't expect me to bow to you as if I were Obama. I bow to no man.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | November 24, 2009 7:13 PM
@ DaveL :
You said:
In case you were a bit rusty on the definition of treason, the U.S. constitution provides it for you in Art.III,Sec.3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
_______________________
I am gald you finally brought up Jane Fonda and John Kerry's crimes. Giving aid to the enemy in a time of war.
Actually this healthcare bill could be challenged in the supreme court as being unconstitutional. I would not be so against it if i could opt out of it, but I have no choice. The government will take my money by force wether I like it or not. It is MY money, not theirs. They can shove it up their arse as far as I am concerned. I would rather burn it tahn let the filthy whores and theives have it. Give me a total opt out plan (I keep my money, period) and you will heard the end of the opposition. If not, opposition is all you will hear. Even after this illegal and unconstitutional bill passes, people will still be opposed to it and protest it and curse it. You can pass the bill, but you can't make us like it.
Posted by: Captain Patriot | November 24, 2009 7:21 PM
Let's see...accusations of us fearing right-wingers because we mock their inanity, check. Allusions to "facism" and a bizarro world Europe, check. Taunts of "you'll know I'm right one of these days, and THEN you'll be sorry!", check. A missive made up of substance-free "facts," check. Projection, projection, projection, check. Yep, way to follow the Guide to Being a Right-Winger in 2009TM to the letter, Cap!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 7:22 PM
Captain Patriot - You're an idiot being mocked for your idiocy. Good thing you take pride in it. I'm sure it happens often.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 7:30 PM
Captain Pee Pants,
So which part of the definition of treason does the health care bill fall under?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 8:07 PM
Captain Pimpledick -
You don't bow to no man. You just don't bow to anyone but Republicans.
Also, you describe liberals as both socialists and fascists. Definitely outs you as a loony. Read the Wikipedia articles on both and then come back.
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 8:16 PM
You know, occasionally the lunacy of the teabaggers whining about their supposed death panels makes me wonder if it would be a great idea if we actually did have death panels, if only because it means there'd be a lot less of them.
But, unlike the teabaggers, I have a sense of humanity, which in the end, says 'Nah, it's just not nice.'
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 8:18 PM
Also, who's the fascists here? Keep in mind, Private Pissy-bottoms (no officer you!), you guys are the ones who are sexually repressive.
And if there's one unifying characteristic of authoritarian movements, whether they be far left or far right, it's always been sexual repression. Far-left Romania under Ceausescu did it (they banned abortion and criminalized homosexuality), far-right Nazi Germany did it (they did the same thing), and now the far-right faction of the Republican Party wants to do it.
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 8:22 PM
Captain Patriot "I am gald you finally brought up Jane Fonda and John Kerry's crimes. Giving aid to the enemy in a time of war."
Burning a village to save it = Patriotic.
Criticizing burning villages to save them = Treason.
What's it like living in a world where everything you do is right, no matter how wrong it is?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 8:29 PM
Modusoperandi, you forget the Republicans don't care if they're right, they just want to win.
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 8:59 PM
Oh the yoke and tyranny of universal health care in Canada. Last tuesday I dropped by a local clinic, had a moderate wait, was seen, prescribed, given a referral and even offered a seasonal flu shot ( I was only there for the prescription consult).
Oh woe, the efficiency and friendliness. Oh WOE that the entire cost was around 11 bucks for my scripts, and oh woe, we're taxed at around 22% compared to my US friends at 30%
Oh. Help. I'm SO oppressed. I've never been denied medical care. I've never had a government beaurecrat tell me what I can and cannot access. I will get a referral in January for a minor surgery that won't be that long of a wait, either.(the january apt is of my choosing.)
Oh. The. HORROR of it all.
Captain Patsypants doth have not a clue what he speaks of.
Meanwhile, friends of mine with insurance have been unable to see a practitioner, in two years, because insurance won't authorize.
Posted by: Nico | November 24, 2009 9:09 PM
So which part of the definition of treason does the health care bill fall under?
--------------------
Well. This country was founded on the principles of freedom and free markets. this proposed "health" care bill is socialism. Even Obama said in 2007 he wanted to see a single payer (socialism) health care system. Socislism is an enemy of the United States. Therefore, this bill gives and aid and comfort to the enemy.
---------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, friends of mine with insurance have been unable to see a practitioner, in two years, because insurance won't authorize.
-----
Sounds like your friends need to see their doctor anyway and tell the insurance agnecy to pay up or face criminal charges of extortion.
You people do not seem to realize that I hate the insurance companies as much as you do. My insurance is expensive and does not pay well. I get pissed off every year when they steal my payraise with their new premiums.
However, I do not want a single payer system ran by far left trial lawyers with an evil agenda of population control, global warming advocacy and the like.
I hate my stupid insurancecompany as much as the next person. The insurance agency is not the only people to blame though. Have you ever bought a bottle of Tylenol that costs $6.00 per tablet at Walmart? I thought not. If wal-mart cannot sell a bottle of Tylenol for $600, then why can the hospital get away with it? That is fraud and extortion and the hospital personell that made this barbaric price should be prosecuted for this crap. Insurance is high partly because of hospital rates. Hospitals are supposed to be non-profit. However, a $595 dollar profit on 1 bottle of Tylenol tells me I am in the wrong business. I need to own a hospital pharmacy. I could be wealthy in less than ten minutes.
Don;t blame the insruance for everything. The hospitals can share alot of the blame as well. Then comes the freakish lawyers and their pathetic lawsuits. I can understand some cases, but many cases I read about, I would love to ban the lawyer and judge in the case from practicing law for the rest of their life for their stupidity. They never use common sense.
Why wait until January? Why not now? What if this was open heart surgery? You could die before January. I guess socialism isn't so great after all unless you are healthy and never use the system.
---------------------------
To everyone else:
Thanks for promoting me.
Posted by: Captain patriot | November 24, 2009 9:50 PM
Uh, waiting till January because my issue isn't life threatening in the slightest. If it was, I would be already assessed and if not in surgery or recovering, on the priority for it in the next ten days. Which it's not, and I'm not, I'm just waiting till I'm over the holiday travel season where I'll be away for two weeks, so it can just wait. It's not open heart surgery. You're being dramatic. ( all my friend who've needed emergent surgery have well obtained it, FYI, quite expediently.)
No government agent has forced this decision on me. It's entirely of my own choosing.
Yes, my friends SHOULD argue with their insurers. Catch is, with my country's system, I don't have to. My government assumes doctors and patients are well capable of using the system and treating it responsibly, and determining courses of actions.
It might be a radical concept. But we might even be freer than you think. My mom didn't have to lose a day for treatment at a local hospital, and the cost of her care would have been astronomical had it happened in the US.
I think my US friends would LIKE to get on with work and lives.
And that markup on tylenol: criminal, but that's how care for the uninsured is currently covered. It's stupid and inefficient and that's what the system is.
but government universal care need not be some oppressive yoke. Go educate yourself before spouting off half wit commentary. I wouldn't dream of living in a country without a universal system.
I personally think the insurers in the US have had their heyday for far too long, and have shown no inclination to consider the services they provide and at what cost, and no inclination to change, unless forced. So be it. Their time is well past up.
I still don't buy how universal care is socialist or treasonous. It's humane, and ethical, but I can see how those might be scary concepts for people used unfamiliar to them.
Posted by: Nico | November 24, 2009 11:03 PM
Well, well. Captain Pantywaist is back and as full of shit as the Thanksgiving Turkey. Y'know, Cap, there's just one question I want an answer for. Where, when and in what capactiy did you serve in the military? Or did you not serve and thus are using a military title to which you have no claim. Or, are you a civilian "captain" or maybe in the merchant marine. Don't kill yourself trying to find the answer. Kill yourself, by all means, but not to find an answer.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 11:06 PM
Au contraire: thank YOU for helping us sharpen our nails for the next benighted conspiracy-theorist moron who stumbles onto this blog.
What makes socialism an enemy of the United States? Perhaps you are confusing it with communism, which is anything but socialism in some ways - it's socially rightist and economically leftist, unlike socialism, which is socially leftist and economically leftist, or perhaps you are confusing it with national 'socialism', which is actually a weird sort of syncretist fascism.
I see you still live in the Cold War era, where anything red is automatically enemy. Memo: the USSR no longer exists!
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 11:06 PM
We enjoy sharpening our nails on morons.
Perhaps I should say 'kept the blog's nails sharp', because, well, you're only the most recent moron in a whole slew of morons, if I remember correctly .
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 11:09 PM
As I suggested in comment #9, I still say this guy is a wannabe satirist. Poe's Law in effect. He is taking all of you for a ride.
Posted by: Jack | November 24, 2009 11:10 PM
Sounds as uninformed, looney, and narccissistic as Pat, without the foul language. A cousin, maybe. This is why I am against incest. Surely all these fools are related. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | November 24, 2009 11:10 PM
You people do not seem to realize that I hate the insurance companies as much as you do.
Based on your total disregard for observable reality, and your non-response to Nico's factual statements about how Canada's health-care system REALLY works, we realize you hate reality for not accommodating your brittle mindset.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 11:21 PM
"[sic] Socislism is an enemy of the United States."
Uh no, no it isn't. Unless you can point to the formal declaration of war ratified by the Congress, of course.
"Sounds like your friends need to see their doctor anyway and tell the insurance [sic] agnecy to pay up or face criminal charges of extortion."*
No genius, it'd be you being pursued by the doctor's legal team, demanding either payment for services rendered or face charges.
"...single payer system ran by far left trial lawyers with an evil agenda of population control, global warming advocacy and the like."
Any actual evidence of any of these bald assertions being even vaguely true?
Then there's the whole 'Hospitals are gouging you, but it's all the lawyer's fault. I get so mad with lawyers and Judges who make the crazy decisions I read of in WND, and other quality journalistic sources, in imaginary court cases made up to sell newspapers (or get hits) from morons like me. Grrr'. See that's what happens in your wonderful healthcare system, it happens here too thus it seems that it occurs is irrelevant to the kind of healthcare system. LOGIC FAIL.
"Why wait until January? Why not now? What if this was open heart surgery? You could die before January. I guess socialism isn't so great after all unless you are healthy and never use the system."
Reading comprehension: F.
What did Nico say again? "I will get a referral in January for a minor surgery that won't be that long of a wait, either.(the [sic] january apt is of my choosing.)" [emphasis mine]
Summing up Cap'n Parrot's latest droppings: TOTAL FAILURE. -DJ
------------------
*You have used 'extortion' a number of times but I'm not sure you know what it actually means. Perhaps this will help.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 11:22 PM
Capt. Pee:
Go pound sand.
Ed:
What we really need is separation of corp and state. Anyone have any ideas on how to get there from here?Posted by: Woof | November 24, 2009 11:33 PM
DingoJack,Raging Bee, I'm well used to the anti-universal care sorts ignoring posts from me and my fellow Canadians, after all, we're clearly deluded.
Laughably, I could have waited another a few years before pursuing surgery for this issue, but in the clinic's efficiency, they offered to start the process, and I accepted.
I could die, I guess, if I managed to say, sneeze and walk into oncoming traffic. Technically, I guess that would be sinus related. Unlikely, however!
The peace of mind knowing we have cradle to grave services, and that it's saved the life and livelihood of many of my friends, is astounding. I consider it tax money well spent.
Posted by: Nico | November 24, 2009 11:33 PM
Actually, I would argue that "rightness" is their true religion, at least amongst the social conservatives. They don't seem to care whether or not they win so much as perceiving themselves as "right"--look at their support of Sarah Palin, even as all concrete evidence indicated that she was impeding McCain's campaign. They cling to the notion that they are right in all matters, as if that is is the source of their self-worth.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 11:35 PM
After reading his previous comments, I was on the fence over whether "Captain Patriot" was serious or a troll until I got to that paragraph.
Posted by: Harry Bosch | November 25, 2009 12:51 AM
#51 - 'shove it up your arse' - ARSE? That's how you spell it? Oh really?
I no longer believe that this guy is even an American.
Posted by: Buffybot | November 25, 2009 2:15 AM
He's not. He's a Real American™
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 2:24 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 8:58 AM
James Hanley:
Don't forget the bunny slippers.;)
We both know it's only a spelling mistake, but "socislism" sounds like a worldwide Socratic movement.
A friend of mine was telling me that one of his clients likes using the Socratic method in training excercises. I asked him if that meant the people who failed had to drink hemlock.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 10:00 AM
"Let it be known though that I fear no man and fear no tyranny. I am a free man, a soveriegn citizen of a soverign country, not a slave to government or to leftist socialism or any other related evil."
come on, poe right? Nobody actually writes this gibberish? The random "scare quotes" around "words" like journalist? The pompous rhetoric that makes you sound like a partially lobotomised Cicero?
The only way in which you are sovereign is that you aspire to be an autocrat- your cretinous fever dreams of persecution are obviously just textbook projection.
Let's hope that those aliens aren't from Mehico eh? Otherwise you might have to gun 'em down.
N.B You might fear no man, but are you scared of girls? Crious minds want to know!
Posted by: Coryat | November 27, 2009 7:47 AM
Coryat - only partially lobotomised? It sound to me like a radical, total, cranial lobectomy to me. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 27, 2009 8:55 AM
I have to stick with my Poe argument that I made earlier in the thread. This guy is just too over the top stupid to really believe any of this bullshit. It is such a perfect example of the idiocy portrayed by the GOP and the Teabaggers that, for one person to spew all of its vindictiveness in a single thread is simply too much to believe.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 27, 2009 12:33 PM
dogmeatib:
Perhaps he is the UrPoe, the missing link between baboons and the batshit rightwingers.
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2009 8:23 PM
I concede the partially lobotomised point; the captain is clearly brainless.
Posted by: Coryat | November 29, 2009 8:09 AM
Small Business owners are largely forgotten. Thats why I only focus on them. I have experience several members of my family file bankruptcy due to small business failures. I also I suffered through 2 destroyed businesses due to failure however, in my failings I have learned some of the secrets to success. (Who can say they know it all?)
What I like about small business owners is that they are not afraid to take huge risks and lay it all on the line. But, I agree they do need a lot of help with their marketing. I think having them go the social media and email route is not only the least expensive but its also the most effective. Thanks for the stats!
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by: somaie | December 15, 2009 1:57 AM