I’d say the gambit is purely political. They want registered democrats.

For this particular crowd is just too healthy to even NEED actual medicaid attention.

Certainly, NO PROVISION of extra resources is on order — far from it.

This attitude leads one to imagine they can see the future (after all, isn’t it “inevitable?”). Coupled with this faulty “knowledge” is the seductive idea of being one of the anointed; you know better, and sneer at the sheeple.
This of course is exactly the thought-process on the left.

Epistemological humility is a hallmark of conservatism. I think we’ve all had our own brushes with it: remembering something important said to us, but we didn’t understand it at the time. Only later did we grasp the truth.
Some on the left are completely hopeless. They can’t be saved. Others are converts in waiting. The problem is that it’s very hard to tell them apart.
We make our best arguments and trust it will sway skeptics, especially with the aid of proof. We take irrevocable actions only when we must.

OTOH, maybe you’re just having a bad day. Take a nap; you’ll feel better.

2013/02/16/allan-bloom-on-the-ubiquity-of-moral-relativism-in-1987/

“Many loathe bible thumping, hell and brimstone, dogmatic, literalistic types who are not uncommon among fundamentalist Christian groups. The type who pay far more attention to the Old Testament than to the New”

Given that people consider 99% of religious people in existence to be part of that category, doesn’t really mean they are making a specific discrimination. They cannot tell the difference because the propaganda targeting was never designed to allow them to make that distinction accurately.

When people are made puppets, their emotions, distinctions, decisions, choices, reactions, and discriminations are less theirs than the puppet master’s.

“If ever we should “forgive them, for they know not what they doEit is now.”

Moral agents may be forgiven, but not tools. Because tools are not responsible for what they do, only the user. Many Leftist members are not users, but merely tools and cannofodder. There’s no need to forgive a tool, a gun, or a bomb. There’s no particular need to blame it either, of course.

“If they find that things aren’t going well for those people despite their policies, they sincerely think it just needs to be done better.”

Tyrants usually find it easier to blame external factors for internal failures. So if social democrats think their policies aren’t working, their first response should be to say that it is the fault of X. X being Republicans or conservatives or other counter-social revolutionaries. Even when it shouldn’t be, that is the instinctual response, due to propaganda control. It’s some one else’s fault, the fault of evil enemies.

In this way, tyrants can gain even more power as a result of their failed internal policies.

There seems to be this inclination to blame individual Leftists because people assume they are personally responsible for their own actions and are aware of the evil they do. The opposite reaction seems to prefer to forgive those that do evil without realizing it, whether through foolish or ignorance. I just don’t think the issue is whether they are fools or evil. This reminds me of the issue with Obama being a foolish incompetent or an evil master mind. To me, it didn’t really matter as much, because evil is the result. So long as evil is the result, whether it comes from one or the other isn’t very critical.

I don’t see why one needs to blame people for the evil they do nor forgive them. It’s far more convenient to treat them as the tools they are. Moral agents, they are not. If these people had free will and were using it, the results might be the same as anything else. But our response would not be. When people choose evil of their own free will, they must be obliterated or redeemed. Tools that are used to achieve evil, does not necessarily need to be destroyed. Whether we are supposed to convince or destroy evil people, whether we are supposed to make use of the tools of our enemies or not, is a strategic decision. It hinges greatly upon how our side perceives who the human resources of the enemy are: moral agents that have chosen evil of their own accord, or mere tools.

Destruction is preferred for the former, conversion/capture for the later.

Ha! a couple of years ago I would have said that would never happen; but, since US citizens are now “forced” to buy a product or service from a third party I’m not going to be so quick to say “it would never happen.”

sigh . . .

Is that ironic?

Maybe it is ironic, but is it because the speaker is saying something he doesn’t really believe is true?

We expect hate to be the equal and opposite of love, if hate and love are emotions. But what if they are choices? Wouldn’t it be ironic (a subterfuge by the examiner) if we concluded, at the end of the examination, that, since you have a choice, whether to choose hate or love, the statement, “hate is fueled by love” is wrong. Hate is fueled by choice.

Hate is fueled by unforgiveness. And is this not what we experience and see? Do you know a lot of loving people who hate?

The irony, perhaps, goes even deeper. Hate, as the proverb goes, is the proper action against evil by those who love God (good). To love God is to hate evil. Ps 97.10.

So, hatred of good is evil, but hatred of evil is good, and, therefore, hatred can be fueled by love.

The statement is not ironic, just undefined. Hate, as we all know, can be evil or good. Just like guns. The “transformation of “hate” into just evil is a lie, a deception, and the removal of a very awesome commandment from God.