The Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act

[DrunkenMage]

There is no point, I was merely curious. You had issues because this was mandatory and wrote;

All this aside my biggest problem with the ACA is that it is mandatory. I am a 30 yr old female that prefers natural healing to mainstream medicine.

I was curious on what you considered mainstream and by natural healing. I didn't realize they shove certain medicine down your throat that you don't want when you have a cold. These Dems must be crazy.

 

[DrunkenMage]

I'm fine with being considered arrogant, Mage, and what you say has some merit, but it is also not absolute. The wisdom comes with experience, which cannot be shortcut effectively, and so requires age. You are right, however, in the sense that just making it a certain number of years does not mean you have experienced the things needed to be wise to a certain subject.

That being said, can you fault the wisdom in steering people toward the actual source, rather than some reporter's version of the source? You, if you recall, only too happily express your knowledge of things like the Patriot act. Have you read it, or have your read someone's summary of it? If you have made your decision based on a news article, a book, or someone else's understanding of the law, which I suspect to be the case as your response to my THOMAS question was a resounding "huh?", then you are acting unwisely, regardless of your age.

Wisdom comes with collective experience, the knowledge from many others. Your own experiences don't make you any more wise than Anouck or anyone else in this thread. Your wisdom comes from yourself and your own experience, but in no way are you more wise than the next man or woman who has experienced another thing.

No one is faulting the wisdom of looking at facts, but you steer people away from knowledge because of your own personal distaste. Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise. Instead of telling others not to believe anyone and then in an argument when presented with facts you say don't believe what people tell you, which you do every so often.

My comments regarding the Patriot Act were not about the random plops placed in that Bill that probably no person in Congress even read. It was more about the effects afterwards, anything can look amazing on paper, in practice another thing. My not knowing about THOMAS, doesn't make me unwise, nor would it make me wise. I do not study American politics, nor do I scroll through every bill passed and have a good read.

You rely constantly on what you read in Library of Congress, that isn't being wise. You need to do more than just go "Well sounds great on paper." To actually understand the positives and negatives you have to do something you don't like. Read other reports, not just Government legislation, read about the effects from several reports.

I bet THOMAS doesn't mention that USA PATRIOT is being abused.

Though using THOMAS, to keep you happy.

(Sec. 213) Authorizes Federal district courts to allow a delay of required notices of the execution of a warrant if immediate notice may have an adverse result and under other specified circumstances

(Sec. 411) Includes within the definition of "terrorist activity" the use of any weapon or dangerous device.

Defines "terrorist organization" as a group: (1) designated under the Immigration and Nationality Act or by the Secretary of State; or (2) a group of two or more individuals, whether related or not, which engages in terrorist-related activities.

"When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’" – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican Party.

There are many things that you American's would call 'Unconstitutional' about the Patriot Act.

Not to mention what the US Homeland Security actually considers potential terrorist threats.

Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.
- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);
- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

Tell me, which is wiser, the man who reads from one source or the man who takes in several?

 

[Mighty Pecan Pie]

Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

Political leaders are different to several Professors, who have experience in a field of study. Professors being plural, being more than one, if you don't believe in your own education, in those that teach the current and next generations. Society will only go backwards, so yes it is good to take in what Professors tell you and gain the knowledge for yourself from them.

If one is to simply go "Don't believe what they tell you" They being those who are teachers and scientists, perhaps the next heart surgeon can become something like what Joe and you are suggesting? "They tried to tell me how to practice medicine, but I know not to follow what they teach."

The point of learning is to question, no one has suggested you blindly follow anyone. Blindly following and simply not listening are two very different things. No crowd is a good crowd, people are stupid, a person is smart. One needs to learn and understand for themselves, that is what a good Professor/Teacher does, you can either take in what you learn or deny it as false like what is being suggested.

No point sending children to school or the sick to Doctors, since people aren't going to believe or listen to them.

 

[Anouck]

Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

Of course they don't. You should always think for yourself. But what is wrong with reading and listening to people who know what they're talking about? I used facts and quotes from an older man who studied economics, got rewarded for his work and won the noble prize. Then I heard it was wrong to listen to intellectuals and books.

If you're afraid of leaders who don't tell you everything, then it is very important to inform yourself about certain subjects. 'Don't listen to educated people' and 'don't listen to books' to me, sounds exactly like what a corrupt leader would say in order to keep his people dumb.

 

[Mighty Pecan Pie]

Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

Political leaders are different to several Professors, who have experience in a field of study. Professors being plural, being more than one, if you don't believe in your own education, in those that teach the current and next generations. Society will only go backwards, so yes it is good to take in what Professors tell you and gain the knowledge for yourself from them.

If one is to simply go "Don't believe what they tell you" They being those who are teachers and scientists, perhaps the next heart surgeon can become something like what Joe and you are suggesting? "They tried to tell me how to practice medicine, but I know not to follow what they teach."

The point of learning is to question, no one has suggested you blindly follow anyone. Blindly following and simply not listening are two very different things. No crowd is a good crowd, people are stupid, a person is smart. One needs to learn and understand for themselves, that is what a good Professor/Teacher does, you can either take in what you learn or deny it as false like what is being suggested.

No point sending children to school or the sick to Doctors, since people aren't going to believe or listen to them.

I'm saying, think for yourself. Not follow BLINDLY. Sure you have to learn from others. But if you just believe everything they tell you, you don't become any smarter.

 

[Mighty Pecan Pie]

Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

Of course they don't. You should always think for yourself. But what is wrong with reading and listening to people who know what they're talking about? I used facts and quotes from an older man who studied economics, got rewarded for his work and won the noble prize. Then I heard it was wrong to listen to intellectuals and books.

If you're afraid of leaders who don't tell you everything, then it is very important to inform yourself about certain subjects. 'Don't listen to educated people' and 'don't listen to books' to me, sounds exactly like what a corrupt leader would say in order to keep his people dumb.

That last sentence, I can't agree more. Hence why I said kinda agree.

 

[Anouck]

Provided if they tell you the whole truth.

I do kinda agree with JoeReese. It's not good to blindly follow professors and other big figures. We are the people, they let us believe what they want us to believe.

A good crowd is a calm crowd. You really think our leaders tell us everything? Hell no.

Political leaders are different to several Professors, who have experience in a field of study. Professors being plural, being more than one, if you don't believe in your own education, in those that teach the current and next generations. Society will only go backwards, so yes it is good to take in what Professors tell you and gain the knowledge for yourself from them.

If one is to simply go "Don't believe what they tell you" They being those who are teachers and scientists, perhaps the next heart surgeon can become something like what Joe and you are suggesting? "They tried to tell me how to practice medicine, but I know not to follow what they teach."

The point of learning is to question, no one has suggested you blindly follow anyone. Blindly following and simply not listening are two very different things. No crowd is a good crowd, people are stupid, a person is smart. One needs to learn and understand for themselves, that is what a good Professor/Teacher does, you can either take in what you learn or deny it as false like what is being suggested.

No point sending children to school or the sick to Doctors, since people aren't going to believe or listen to them.

I'm saying, think for yourself. Not follow BLINDLY. Sure you have to learn from others. But if you just believe everything they tell you, you don't become any smarter.

That is true.
But what I see in this thread is not just being 'objective'. It looks more like paranoia to me. Unlike others in this thread I decided to back up my arguments with facts and graphs. I don't say 'I am right because I just am' I try to show other people where I get a certain conviction from.
And of course; people should always question what they read and think for themselves. But what I notice more and more, is that people just bomb every fact you use and say it is invalid 'because you read books and listen to people'. If you're going to use the 'think for yourself' argument in order to nuke every fact you can't prove wrong, it is very easy to win a debate.

 

[DrunkenMage]

I'm saying, think for yourself. Not follow BLINDLY. Sure you have to learn from others. But if you just believe everything they tell you, you don't become any smarter.

No one has ever said, blindly follow. Blindly following is the sign of a sheep, not the sign of being smarter. Listening to your professors and understanding them, is what you're supposed to do. You quoted by saying you kind of agree with the whole don't believe/listen to Professors and those experienced in the matters. I'm not exactly sure what you were hinting when saying provided they tell you everything. I repeat myself by saying a Political Leader is different to a Educational Professor. Learning from a Professor isn't the same when being given a speech by your Government. The Professor provides you the means to figure it out for yourself, so anything you believe they're not telling you is either your unwillingness to learn from them or inability to understand what they're teaching, then it is time for a subject change.

That is true.
But what I see in this thread is not just being 'objective'. It looks more like paranoia to me. Unlike others in this thread I decided to back up my arguments with facts and graphs. I don't say 'I am right because I just am' I try to show other people where I get a certain conviction from.
And of course; people should always question what they read and think for themselves. But what I notice more and more, is that people just bomb every fact you use and say it is invalid 'because you read books and listen to people'. If you're going to use the 'think for yourself' argument in order to nuke every fact you can't prove wrong, it is very easy to win a debate.

Thinking for yourself, isn't a bad argument. Just when overused as an excuse for everyone is wrong and I'm right because I said so, is what would make society go backwards, instead of forwards.

People just tend to mistake perspective for ignorance.

 

[Mighty Pecan Pie]

No one has ever said, blindly follow. Blindly following is the sign of a sheep, not the sign of being smarter. Listening to your professors and understanding them, is what you're supposed to do. You quoted by saying you kind of agree with the whole don't believe/listen to Professors and those experienced in the matters. I'm not exactly sure what you were hinting when saying provided they tell you everything. I repeat myself by saying a Political Leader is different to a Educational Professor. Learning from a Professor isn't the same when being given a speech by your Government. The Professor provides you the means to figure it out for yourself, so anything you believe they're not telling you is either your unwillingness to learn from them or inability to understand what they're teaching, then it is time for a subject change.

What I hinted at provided they tell the whole truth, is that even educational people don't always tell everything. As you said, society is going downwards. From what I experienced in high-school was to think in a certain way, any other way was ruled invalid. That is what I meant with telling the whole truth.

And you can repeat it every time again, but then you are doing the same as you accuse others of.

 

[DrunkenMage]

What I hinted at provided they tell the whole truth, is that even educational people don't always tell everything. As you said, society is going downwards.

Telling everything isn't possible. Educational people are teaching you subjects over a few phases from the basics - advanced. Then you either go further and find more, create more, pass down more. I didn't say Society is going downwards, I said this is what would cause society to go downwards, our society is young and new, it is advancing. Clinging to the paranoid notion that everyone is lying is what holds us back. Refusing to listen, to take in information.

From what I experienced in high-school was to think in a certain way, any other way was ruled invalid. That is what I meant with telling the whole truth.

High school, is being taught how to do things a certain way, they are the middle ground. To know another way of doing something, you first have to learn how to do it one way. Generally during High School, when asked to do things in a certain way in regards to say, science, maths and certain parts of subjects is normal, and important. You need to start from somewhere, before you attempt to go everything.

If you're accusing the educational system of teaching you something a certain way, the way that has been passed down as a good starting point. Then you're just blaming others if you were made wrong, when it comes to questions of "What you YOU think" then there shouldn't be a wrong way of doing something. But going past High School is where you're learning new ways, different ways to do things. High School is your starting area.

And you can repeat it every time again, but then you are doing the same as you accuse others of.

I haven't accused anyone of anything, other than trying to say not listening to those who teach, is foolish. Besides, I can only say something in a certain way to make the point. Educational and Political are different things, unless it is political science. Then you're entering in another nightmare.

Though perhaps I should repeat it once more, for it seems you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You quoted into something and made a point about something that no one said, no one mentioned and then entered into a debate, of which I'm not exactly sure you're completely aware what it is about. Though I could be wrong, that is up for your conclusion.

 

[PrisonerLizzie]

Telling everything isn't possible. Educational people are teaching you subjects over a few phases from the basics - advanced. Then you either go further and find more, create more, pass down more. I didn't say Society is going downwards, I said this is what would cause society to go downwards, our society is young and new, it is advancing. Clinging to the paranoid notion that everyone is lying is what holds us back. Refusing to listen, to take in information.

I just want to be able to see with my own eyes what your sources say (without them being paraphrased) and make my own judgements based on that. I think that is the best way to be. You may view it as paranoid but I will counter that you are being naive if you think that just because someone has a degree or is an "expert" that they don't have their own personal agendas.

 

[Mighty Pecan Pie]

Telling everything isn't possible. Educational people are teaching you subjects over a few phases from the basics - advanced. Then you either go further and find more, create more, pass down more. I didn't say Society is going downwards, I said this is what would cause society to go downwards, our society is young and new, it is advancing. Clinging to the paranoid notion that everyone is lying is what holds us back. Refusing to listen, to take in information.

I just want to be able to see with my own eyes what your sources say (without them being paraphrased) and make my own judgements based on that. I think that is the best way to be. You may view it as paranoid but I will counter that you are being naive if you think that just because someone has a degree or is an "expert" that they don't have their own personal agendas.

Those are both no quotes of mine??

 

[DrunkenMage]

I just want to be able to see with my own eyes what your sources say (without them being paraphrased) and make my own judgements based on that. I think that is the best way to be. You may view it as paranoid but I will counter that you are being naive if you think that just because someone has a degree or is an "expert" that they don't have their own personal agendas.

My sources?

It is good to be objective and to question, I never said it wasn't. What is paranoid is believing all your teachers and all professors are lying to you. If you want to believe your High School Science Teacher is lying to you about what the real chemical equation is regarding burning magnesium, that is your right. I will call it paranoid, yes.

When it is coming to certain issues, not everything has a personal agenda.

When I look for information, I tend to look for something that is backed by several things. Several professors if lucky, but there is a difference to flat out saying don't believe them and being objective. Though you're quoting into a post directed to Nyo regarding his High School education, where they teach you a certain way of doing things as a starting point to move onto more advanced. So I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, are you saying your High School teachers had a personal agenda to lie to you for the laughs?

Those are both no quotes of mine??

Fail quoter.

 

[PrisonerLizzie]

When I look for information, I tend to look for something that is backed by several things. Several professors if lucky, but there is a difference to flat out saying don't believe them and being objective.

Very good, but how am I to know who your sources are, what they say to you etc etc if not provided links to writings, or your textbooks or anything except your word? This is why we ask for you to verify. I don't understand why that is something that is causing such a problem. I mean I always thought if whatever you are basing your point of view on is so strong then you would just be forthcoming without provocation. Isn't the point of discussing things to get people to see your point of view? How do you guys expect to even make a glimmer of difference to someone's opinion when it looks like you are just giving yours with little to nothing to back it up. As far as providing graphs etc as Ano did, that's great but anybody can make a graph with 10 min and Paint. Not saying she did but it would have been better if she provided a source, a link anything to back it up.

 

[DrunkenMage]

When I look for information, I tend to look for something that is backed by several things. Several professors if lucky, but there is a difference to flat out saying don't believe them and being objective.

Very good, but how am I to know who your sources are, what they say to you etc etc if not provided links to writings, or your textbooks or anything except your word? This is why we ask for you to verify. I don't understand why that is something that is causing such a problem. I mean I always thought if whatever you are basing your point of view on is so strong then you would just be forthcoming without provocation. Isn't the point of discussing things to get people to see your point of view? How do you guys expect to even make a glimmer of difference to someone's opinion when it looks like you are just giving yours with little to nothing to back it up. As far as providing graphs etc as Ano did, that's great but anybody can make a graph with 10 min and Paint. Not saying she did but it would have been better if she provided a source, a link anything to back it up.

http://beta.congress.gov/

If you are referring to my discussion with Joe, I used what he kept going on about. In which I said I used it? He made it seem everyone knew about THOMAS, didn't think I'd need to link the Library of Congress.

If you are talking about Anouck, Medea or anyone else on this thread. Then you're kind of quoting the wrong person. I haven't taken part in much of this discussion, those posts that I have done which use a third party source, the link is there, any other bits of information used, then Google is there for that if you're truly interested in what I had posted. While using the search bar will give you pages and pages of sources to decide from, it is also because I can't be bothered reading through National Guard and Terrorist profiling, patriotism of another country isn't my forte. I already had to read one policy, I've taken one for the team already. Those things are boring like you wouldn't believe.

 

[Anouck]

As far as providing graphs etc as Ano did, that's great but anybody can make a graph with 10 min and Paint. Not saying she did but it would have been better if she provided a source, a link anything to back it up.

Because it is almost Christmas I'll show you what a good person I am by finding back the sources of the information I used.

Source: http://deeperwants.com/ratboys_anvil_2/2011/11/

People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two richest men in the USA (correct me if I am wrong), think that people, and I quote, should "stop coddling the super-rich". Warren Buffet says that in 2010 he paid a federal tax bill of $6,938,744 - including the income tax as well as the payroll tax, which is only 17.4% of his taxable income and a lower percentage than was paid by the other people in his office whose tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41%. And Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett himself.
Some think that the idea imposing higher taxes on the super-rich as a measure to control fiscal deficit is of much debate and controversy. Some argue that this approach is counter-productive, leads to volatile revenues, and isn’t an effective measure to raise revenues as it takes resources away from job creators in the private sector, which will deter investors from starting new enterprises.
On the "job creators" thing, I'd like to note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. And what ha been happening since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Source: http://www.policymic.com/articles/42307/bill-gates-tax-the-rich-more-to-help-reduce-deficit

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

According to professor R.D Wolff, back in the 50s and 60s the USA government relied for a very big percentage on the taxes of corporations. Back then the economy was stronger and fewer were unemployed. Today, this heavily changed, and the government relies on individual taxes. But even now the USA is at the lowest end when we're talking about the amount of money your government asks you to pay. In other countries you have to pay way more. Sadly there is a huge disproportion in the burden, and the USA puts more burden on the middle class and people with a low income than other countries.

Source:

Richard D. Wolff (economics professor)
http://rdwolff.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

 

[JoeReese]

So, you've used someone's blog, a news quote, and a link from a wikipedia page called "Distribution of wealth" as neutral sources?

As far as THOMAS / LOC goes, if you plan to argue US law, you should know about it and you should use it. Mage, the summary you quoted is still paraphrased. That's only a part of the search tool, so you can tell which bills/laws to look at. You have to do full text, in order to get the actual verbatim bills.

That being said, I can't imagine there being anything else I could say or do here, if things like the actual 2013 tax guide from the IRS.gov, or the LOC's copies of actual bills, are trumped by some guy's blog and a wikipedia page. You will both continue to see and believe what you're told you should, like good subjects should I suppose. The only real future I can see for your line of thought is disappointment. If either of you truly believes that professors, scientists, teachers, etc., don't have a political agenda to push, then you are in for a very, very rude awakening, and I thank God I'll be gone before I have to live through it with you.

On a final note, though, a little light reading for you. It's not long, should take a couple of hours, but you may notice some parallels. If they don't at least cause you concern, there is something very wrong with you.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

 

[DrunkenMage]

As far as THOMAS / LOC goes, if you plan to argue US law, you should know about it and you should use it. Mage, the summary you quoted is still paraphrased. That's only a part of the search tool, so you can tell which bills/laws to look at. You have to do full text, in order to get the actual verbatim bills.

I see so Thomas is only correct in the way you use it? Interesting. I pull out something that has 1016 sections but not correct aye?

That being said, I can't imagine there being anything else I could say or do here, if things like the actual 2013 tax guide from the IRS.gov, or the LOC's copies of actual bills, are trumped by some guy's blog and a wikipedia page. You will both continue to see and believe what you're told you should, like good subjects should I suppose. The only real future I can see for your line of thought is disappointment. If either of you truly believes that professors, scientists, teachers, etc., don't have a political agenda to push, then you are in for a very, very rude awakening, and I thank God I'll be gone before I have to live through it with you.

Fact you believe everyone has a Political agenda is paranoia.

 

[Anouck]

So, you've used someone's blog, a news quote, and a link from a wikipedia page called "Distribution of wealth" as neutral sources?

Of course...
When I give you sources you will tell me they are useless anyway.

...Why am I surprised? You even told Mage he was wrong, even though he used your source...

The one from Wikipedia, is really from Wikipedia. The one from a blog is originally from somewhere else, but I couldn't find the original source because there was a week between my post and your request for sources. Same goes for the news quote.

But why is Wikipedia wrong?
Please tell me you're not one of those types who only goes to conservapedia...

As far as THOMAS / LOC goes, if you plan to argue US law, you should know about it and you should use it. Mage, the summary you quoted is still paraphrased. That's only a part of the search tool, so you can tell which bills/laws to look at. You have to do full text, in order to get the actual verbatim bills.

That being said, I can't imagine there being anything else I could say or do here, if things like the actual 2013 tax guide from the IRS.gov, or the LOC's copies of actual bills, are trumped by some guy's blog and a wikipedia page. You will both continue to see and believe what you're told you should, like good subjects should I suppose. The only real future I can see for your line of thought is disappointment. If either of you truly believes that professors, scientists, teachers, etc., don't have a political agenda to push, then you are in for a very, very rude awakening, and I thank God I'll be gone before I have to live through it with you.

I am juist going to quote Mage here.

Fact you believe everyone has a Political agenda is paranoia.

I know politicians, I know teachers. That you think just because you have that job, all of the sudden you're corrupted and have a double agenda is just ridiculous. Maybe you're bitter. And maybe you have the right to be, I don't judge you.
What advantage does my French teacher have in brain washing me? And why should a decent nice person like her become a cockroach; just because she is a teacher and obviously has a double agenda. Wow.

On a final note, though, a little light reading for you. It's not long, should take a couple of hours, but you may notice some parallels. If they don't at least cause you concern, there is something very wrong with you.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

You underestimate me: I am familiar with communism and Karl Marx. Yes, it is concerning.
Now my question for you: what does it have to do with me? I can also send you a random link of Mine Kampf and ask you if you find that concerning, and the answer will probably 'yes'. It has nothing to do with this debate.

...Unless you're one of those people who compares socialism/liberals/left wing to communism. In that case you don't know as much about politics as you claim. In that case, YOU are the one who is being brainwashed by your government. Your government that makes you believe all those 'communistic idiots in Europe' are pure evil. Guess what; there is no such thing as black and white; only grey.
And I find it worrisome that in America so many people have this idea that the left wing is even comparable to communism.