Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (12136)	12/8/2009 2:25:05 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

As usual his analogy was on point. As usual you simply refute without explanation as though your refutation were somehow authoritative. On what basis do you disagree? Explain how you come to that conclusion. The context was the validity of the strategy of rising up in rebellion against an oppressive government that had imposed fines and jail terms on people who didn't buy health insurance. First we had my opinion that those rising up against said oppressive government would be losers. Then we got Odama's notion that that would somehow make Lincoln a loser. For his analogy to be apt, Lincoln would have to have risen up against a government that was oppressing him. Somebody tell me where and when he did that. You can't because, unless I seriously missed something, Lincoln was never an insurrectionist. Therefore the analogy is unsound. If you had in mind the Civil War, Lincoln's role in that was not that of a rebel but as Commander in Chief of the oppressive government that put down the rebellion, which would make the analogy not only inapt but 180 degrees inapt. If, OTOH, you had in mind some other insurrection, please share.