With Bill Clinton, it was "Triangulation".
Guess now we're one-upping. There are, apparently, four health care bills floating around. So when we're talking about what is in "The Bill", we have to be careful which "The Bill" we're talking about.
"It's not in The Bill". Which bill?
"There's a provision in The Bill ..." Which bill?
And then to weather criticism telling us "how can we criticize 'a' bill when it's not even written yet?"
So let me get this straight. Congress has 4 (or more?) bills floating around, and we're not allowed to criticize anything in any of them because they're not finished yet, but one of them needs to be passed as soon as possible or the country will go bankrupt, and we'll all die and go to (the non-existent) Hell because we're immoral for not passing it. We're not allowed to extrapolate from what has happened to every other government social program (gets massively expanded in scope and cost, and interpreted in more and more broad ways).
It is disingenuous to talk about the specific language in this bill (which bill, again?) as being restrictive in nature because of what it doesn't say specifically, or because of what it does say rather vaguely.
Deception and dismissal is the game here.
And as I just heard a woman call it, "Philanthropic Strong-Arming". Should the government really be telling me what's moral and what isn't, and demand that I behave that way? Isn't that what all the screaming about separation of church and state is all about? Unless ... the state has decided to become the official church.
Which is another marker of which political philosophy? (hint. starts with an "F". And ends with an "ascism")
No comments:
Post a Comment