Talk Elections

As soon as the government announced that Eastasia had always been the enemy, no one would even fathom that Eurasia had been the enemy just minutes before.

Similarly, not only will most Republicans not admit that the individual mandate spent nearly 20 years being standard Republican policy, they seem to have honestly convinced themselves that it was always an unconstitutional liberal plot.

It's scary how similar the situations are, and how much power FoxNews has over what people believe...

Yes.

Its true it was a conservative idea(i.e. The Heratige Foundation) but now the Republicans are against it. The individual mandate was only passed in one state which was Massachusetts when Romney was governor there. Is not like other Republican governors in other states passed it and than all of a sudden the Republicans were against it.

I watch Fox News but I don't agree with everything they say. I am more of a libertarian type.

Kinda like many Republicans were in favor of intervention in Libya, but as soon as Obama did it they had and about face. The modern GOP is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose you're right in that sense. Well, I really was always against the individual mandate.

There are reasons many a Republican politician might be reminiscent of 1984, but not for anything mentioned so far in this thread.

Al and Sam Spade are more than enough for this forum, thank you.

In my humble opinion, this is an unfair comparison and huge generalization to make.

no

Ok sure and the Democrats remind me of "Brave New World" ;)

Not it wasn't because Obama was in favor of it. It was because the GOP wanted Obama to do it a few weeks earlier with the intervention into Libya. THe GOP had thought the timeline to do the intervention had passed when Obama decided to act on it.

How convenient. You can't possibly fall for such excuses.

This is quote from Niel Postman comparing 1984 with Brave New World:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."

Agreed.  Harry should duckspeak apology to Ingsoc and BB.

Or sending special ops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

No one ever opposed that.

But in the way you state it, yes. I'm kind of rooting for Romney just so we don't have to keep on doing this.

"“Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?” - John McCain

But that wasn't in response to the Bin Laden mission.

I'd rather live in 535 AF than in 1984....

No.

The rabid nationalists on both side who foam at the mouth at the sight of Bradley Manning do, however.

I question the value of the 1984 comparison.  Everything can be compared to it, which effectively means that nothing can. 

George Orwell is watching you...