T1B

I cracked up, the other night, watching ABC's "One Night, Two Parties," debates.

Especially the when the Dems went at it, and Shillary went ballistic, with the double-team of Edwards and Obama. I laughed -- hard -- at her mini-meltdown.

Mitt Romney, btw, is creepy, to say the least. He may, in fact, be the anti-christ.

When McCain said that drug companies are "evil," Romney said, "No they're not."

Oh ... OK, Mitt, so you're the "moral" candidate and you've got the drug companies in your pocket. Noted.

Huckabee, btw, still has that deer-in-the-headlights look. His Arkansas roots are showing.

Discuss.

I have differing levels of distaste for all of the folks you listed, but find them all distasteful.
Not a one of 'em is trustworthy.

Cutting through all the different (and same/similar) positions, the critical bottom line is that none of them has any desire to ...... SERIOUSLY CUT SPENDING.

This is the most fundamental problem our country is facing.

And some of 'em even think we can have universal health care. haha

Sure, I have $10,000 in credit card debt and I go over to the neighbor's house and tell him I'll be happy to pay for health care for his family.


Beeeeeee aut i ful!!!!

You aren't used to having shit in the white house yet?

You aren't used to having them promise the american people everything they want to hear?

I say we bring them all together and rock paper scissors this mess and get it over with. Any one of those fucking soulless assholes in the white house is just as good as any other.

That's probably your best chance to get Ron Paul in there, BTW.

Mister Bushice wrote:That's probably your best chance to get Ron Paul in there, BTW.

One could only hope. Rack the "Fair Tax"

poptart wrote:And some of 'em even think we can have universal health care. haha

Every other industrialized country in the world offers a form of universal health care. To say the United States cannot possibly do so is simply retarded.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Every other industrialized country in the world offers a form of universal health care.

Who gives a fuck?

Every one of the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in America.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Every one of the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in America.

Name one good reason why I should give a fuck let alone pay for their personal problems.

More likely than not, you are one of the millions of underinsured. Of course you'll probably not find out until you actually need an advanced procedure that your insurer will not cover. Then you'll be fucked.

mvscal wrote:More likely than not, your numbers are total bullshit.

Oh yes, you failed to answer a simple question. Why should I give a fuck if you or anybody else doesn't have insurance? Why are you motherfucking assholes trying to make that my problem?

I did answer it. That you're incapable of understanding the concept of enlightened self interest hardly surprises me.

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:And some of 'em even think we can have universal health care. haha

Every other industrialized country in the world offers a form of universal health care. To say the United States cannot possibly do so is simply retarded.

Every Other Industrialized Country In The World also has an official state supported religion, with the ministers paid by the taxpayers.

Every Other Industrialized Country In The World also has government oversight & approval of their news media.

Just because "every other industrialized country in the world" does something doesn't make it a good idea- usually just the opposite

It also is axiomatic that people who think we should model ourseles based on what Every Other Industrialized Country In The World does are dumbfucks

mvscal wrote:Oh I understand it quite well. In fact I understand it so well, I'm going to have to ask you to get your motherfucking hands off of my wallet. I don't need or want you or anybody else looking after my self-interest. When that happens, it is no longer my self-interest now is it?

So don't come sidling up to me trying to steal my money and then tell me it's in my self-interest. You don't make that determination and neither does any other mealy mouthed cocksucker in Washington.

Too late. That ship sailed the nanosecond the Constitution was ratified.

Once again, you have failed to give a straight answer to a simple question. In my experience, when people fail to give straight answers to simple questions it is because they are liars and/or thieves.

My insurance is fine. Why should I give a fuck about yours? Last chance.

You should care because you're a fundamentally decent human being.

But, I realize you're not. That's why I was attempting to appeal to your self interest.

How do you KNOW your insurance is fine?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Every one of the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in America.

Name one good reason why I should give a fuck let alone pay for their personal problems.

You already are every time one of them walks into an emergency room with a case of the sniffles.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Every one of the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in America.

Name one good reason why I should give a fuck let alone pay for their personal problems.

You already are every time one of them walks into an emergency room with a case of the sniffles.

I thought about using that line of reasoning with mv. But then I realized he would just advocate shooting them.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:You should care because you're a fundamentally decent human being.

"Fundamentally decent human beings" do not take and then spend money that belongs to other people on yet another set of strangers. That is what thieves do. If you want to be a "fundamentally decent human being," knock yourself out. You can spend your own fucking money on these bums and leave me out of it. Tell you what. I'll take care of myself and my family. You take care of yourself and your family and keep your personal problems to yourself.

I'm still waiting for one you thieving vultures to come up with a legitimate reason why somebody else's personal problems should be my responsibility. Evidently stealing from productive citizens has become such a deeply ingrained way of life for feeble piles of shit such as yourself that you can't even begin to question what it is you're really doing and why.

OK, so you're an anarchist.

Thanks for clearing that up.

BSmack wrote:
I thought about using that line of reasoning with mv. But then I realized he would just advocate shooting them.

Not a bad idea... but who pays for the bullet?

mvscal wrote:More lies and distortion. No real surprise when all you've got is a pocket full of bullshit.

If you believe taxation to be morally equivalent to theft, you are essentially an anarchist.

And you are essentially a dipshit, Monica

mvscal wrote:"Fundamentally decent human beings" do not take and then spend money that belongs to other people on yet another set of strangers. That is what thieves do.

And when the thieves in questions do so with the threat of imprisonment as the option for failing to pay...that's extortion.

I didn't intend for my representatives in government to help themselves to bigger slices of my paycheck for the purpose of handing it to someone who DIDN'T do anything to deserve it. That was NOT intended by our Founding Fathers, no matter how leftist revisionists try to spin it.

mvscal wrote:If you want to be a "fundamentally decent human being," knock yourself out. You can spend your own fucking money on these bums and leave me out of it. Tell you what. I'll take care of myself and my family. You take care of yourself and your family and keep your personal problems to yourself.

I'm still waiting for one you thieving vultures to come up with a legitimate reason why somebody else's personal problems should be my responsibility. Evidently stealing from productive citizens has become such a deeply ingrained way of life for feeble piles of shit such as yourself that you can't even begin to question what it is you're really doing and why.

I pretty much agree with mvscal. I don't have a problem with having my tax money used for roads, defense spending, etc., but this crap in which we use taxes to give welfare to lazy-ass bums, farmers, industries, is utter horseshit. It seems like the folks empowered in Washington to take our money have interpreted the phrase "for the general welfare" to mean "any damned entitlement program we feel like creating."

And attacking wealthy folks and corporations for the "sin" of being successful and confiscating their money so that the enlightened boobs in D.C. can give it to "those who truly need it" is just the same old "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need" commie horseshit. Haven't the lefties figured out that they're punishing the WRONG people and only enabling nonproductive behaviors in the recipients of the stolen wealth?

BSmack wrote:If you believe taxation to be morally equivalent to theft, you are essentially an anarchist.

The tard is strong in this one.


Taxation in some form or another is inevitable. While there's infinite arguments how it should be done, there's a neccessary evil of some taxation.

Building interstate highways, enforcing borders, and keeping a strong national DEFENSE (note I didn't say "national OFFENSE"), and all kinds of shit are neccessary to ensure and enable the BASIC functions of the federal government.

But just because a little taxation/federal revenue is a good thing, taking the leap-of-logic that since a little is good, a whole shitload must be better is straight-up fucking retarded. If you need further evidence of this, I suggest you test your theory in your medicine cabinet.


Someone remind me -- which part of the Constitution grants the fed the right to take money from one citizen and give it to another? I'll hold my breath waiting on that one...


You know, I'm getting about fucking tired of you people. Newsflash, you walking, talking pieces of shit -- there's a whole buncha motherfuckers who fucking DIED to stop the spread of communism in SE Asia. Now, you're fucking embracing what they died to stop.

While you're at it, you fucking piece of shit thieving communists, why don't you go down to your local VA Hospital and spit in some veterans' faces?

How about make a roadie to Arlington to go dance on some graves?

Maybe bring a hammer and chisel down to the Vietnam Memorial, and deface it as much as possible?


Here's an idea -- if you're so hell-bent on communism/socialism, why don't you exercise your freedom to start up a huge commune? You people can pool all of your money together, and when someone gets sick, you can use your combined funds to pay the bill. Ain't no one stopping you, Ho Chi Tard.

Or, you can just join an HMO -- similar concept. Wait... that was a (illegal) government mandate, too... how's that working out?

I mean, the greatest medical industry on the planet, BY FAR, went to shit in less than 30 years when Big Government put their dirty hands into it... so I can see where you think upping Big Government's involvement from it current involvement of ~2/3rds of medical transactions to a full 100% is a good idea... I mean, the logic is beyond reproach... unless you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.



Call it whatever you want -- "socialized medicine," "communism/socialism"... whatever term works best for you. Myself -- I'll just continute referring to taking money out of one person's pocket against their will to give it to another person as "stealing."


Actually, the next person I hear spouting this bullshit is getting punched right in their motherfucking face. If you walk into my house during the night in the name of "socialized property redistribution," I'll fucking kill you.


I've completely run out of all patience for anyone who thinks they have some right to my money for their own personal benefit.

Fuck off, you traitorous, thieving pieces of shit.

Not my children...

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I pretty much agree with mvscal. I don't have a problem with having my tax money used for roads, defense spending, etc., but this crap in which we use taxes to give welfare to lazy-ass bums, farmers, industries, is utter horseshit. It seems like the folks empowered in Washington to take our money have interpreted the phrase "for the general welfare" to mean "any damned entitlement program we feel like creating."

And attacking wealthy folks and corporations for the "sin" of being successful and confiscating their money so that the enlightened boobs in D.C. can give it to "those who truly need it" is just the same old "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need" commie horseshit. Haven't the lefties figured out that they're punishing the WRONG people and only enabling nonproductive behaviors in the recipients of the stolen wealth?

But all of those programmes were created as a result of the great depression, when the capitalist system failed. They were a social democratic solution to a problem.

Those programmes have never existed in any socialist country, it has nothing to do with Marx or "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need". Socialists have no need of welfare.

Dr_Phibes wrote:But all of those programmes were created as a result of the great depression, when the capitalist system failed.

Uhm....


No.


Excessive government interference in the capitalist system failed. But there's no shortage of rocket surgeons who want to try repeating the experiment, just to see if it was a fluke the first time around.

Capitalism didn't fail. The economy went on a bit of a bender due to widespread uncontrolled credit. (Sound familiar?) That bender then got wayyyy fukking worse when the gubmint decided to fix it.

I get a kick out of how everybody gives credit to good old frank roosevelt for bringing us out of it. What bullshit. The depression was deeper and more of it occured while he ran things. Then along came the war and all of a sudden there was plenty of work to go around. War's will do that.

Then we have dipshit and his famous commie quote......

"From those according to their ability, to those according to their need".

Sounds fair enough till you get to the teeny weeny little problem of WHO THE FUKK DECIDES WHAT ABILITIES AND NEEDS ARE!!!!

'Splain to me, you dumbfukk, how this happens?

As for the problem of those "less fortunate" folks showing up at the ER with a hangnail, the answer is simple. You tell them to go fukk themselves.

Anybody that shows up at the ER for anything other than a legitimate ER need, should be willing to either pay or feel free to go fukk themselves.

ERs should be no different from any other service. If I go to some fancy restaurant looking for a nice lobster dinner, but then refuse to pay, I just might go to jail. Don't fukking matter how fukking hungry I am.

smackaholic wrote:Then along came the war and all of a sudden there was plenty of work to go around. War's will do that.

Not lately.

smackaholic wrote:Then we have dipshit and his famous commie quote......

"From those according to their ability, to those according to their need".

Sounds fair enough till you get to the teeny weeny little problem of WHO THE FUKK DECIDES WHAT ABILITIES AND NEEDS ARE!!!!

Bingo.

First off, the entire premise is morally bankrupt. If someone who produces a larger amount CHOOSES to give OF THEIR OWN wealth, fine and dandy. NO ONE ELSE has the right to confiscate the wealth of another to redistribute for "the common good." Altruism cannot be compulsory.

As for the second half, what constitutes a "need?" Food? How much? Shelter? What kind, and wih what amenities? Transportation? Do folks in rural areas "in need" get free/reduced cars and car insurance, since they "need" them to get to work and to get to services? Health insurance? For what services? Internet and phone service to be able to communicate with the outside world?

And, as smacky asked - WHO FRIGGING DECIDES? Who shall serve as the near-omniscient elite who determines what poor smuck has to have their own wealth pillaged so that some leech can be given the unearned goods made by them?

What's to prevent the productive people who get pissed off about being pickpocketed from speaking out, trying to withdraw from that system, or even deliberately slacking? Oh, wait, that's right - gulags. In addition to the original moral evil of compulsory altruism, it gets compounded by enforcement through the jailing and oppression of those who are victims of the theft.

Yeah, places like Red China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union were just bastions of efficiency and freedom...

Martyred wrote:
Not lately.

Because the warmongers figured out even more ways to skim off the top and outsource as much as possible.


Nice job at the voting booths, assclowns.

Martyred wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Then along came the war and all of a sudden there was plenty of work to go around. War's will do that.

Not lately.

Diane Feinstein is laughing all the way to the bank

&Dinsdale should appreciate THIS...

Dinsdale wrote:Taxation in some form or another is inevitable. While there's infinite arguments how it should be done, there's a neccessary evil of some taxation.

Building interstate highways, enforcing borders, and keeping a strong national DEFENSE (note I didn't say "national OFFENSE"), and all kinds of shit are neccessary to ensure and enable the BASIC functions of the federal government.

I'm assuming that by "basic functions" you are referring to what is essentially America's mission statement. You know, the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But I'm sure if you were there in 1787, you would have taken the whiteout to that part about "promoting the general welfare".

No doubt you also would have volunteered to rewrite the commerce clause.

Any other parts of the Constitution you're not in favor of?

PS: Nice showing by Paul in NH.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Who shall serve as the near-omniscient elite who determines what poor smuck has to have their own wealth pillaged so that some leech can be given the unearned goods made by them?

John Leech Edwards, that's who. He wants and intends to eliminate poverty in the good ol' USofA. Heard him say so tonight on CNN.

Dear God, that schmuck was on a roll. I can't believe anyone would buy what that charlaton was trying to sell.

You can delude yourself all you want, feel free - but the depression was the direct cause of unrestricted capitalism. There was no 'nanny state' interfering in peoples lives back then, the expression 'welfare state' didn't even exist prior to the second world war.

Remember, the great slump rippled right across planet and hammered everyone, not just the United States. Free trade collapsed across the world and everyone slapped up trade barriers and went into protectionist mode. I mean, free trade was the cornerstone of the British Empire since the middle nineteenth century and that attitude vanished in a heartbeat.

The universal model for recovery was Keynes and I don't see how it could have been anything else. When enough people get pissed off who need food, work, etc.- they turn to radical ideas on both the left and right, it was the only way to keep a lid on the situation across the industrialised world. Things were exteremely dangerous at the time, look what happened to the Germans when the economy spiraled so far out of control.

That's where socialised programmes come from in a capitalist country. What this has to do with proper socialism now is beyond me, it's a form of damage control.

And to "each according his ability" simply refers to the fact that one hour of labour is much the same as another, there is no difference - they are all equally important. For example, who is more important - a doctor or a garbage man? Without a doctor, you cannot treat a patient and he will die. Without a garbageman, plague breaks out and everyone dies. They are equally important parts of a working society.

Dr_Phibes wrote: And to "each according his ability" simply refers to the fact that one hour of labour is much the same as another, there is no difference - they are all equally important. For example, who is more important - a doctor or a garbage man? Without a doctor, you cannot treat a patient and he will die. Without a garbageman, plague breaks out and everyone dies. They are equally important parts of a working society.

What?

You're a clueless simpleton if you believe that. The world will never face a shortage of garbagemen, and they won't get paid like doctors.

If that's true War Wagon, why does Cuba export doctors?

eh? eh?

People do what they're good at. It's natural.

How, exactly, do you suppose exhorbitant taxation and robbing from the rich to give to the poor "promotes the general welfare"?


Guess what?

Any time someone has to dig deep and get into the vaguest of the vaguaries of the Constitution, they're up to no good.


But if you people really want to see a violent revolution occur in the USA in your lifetime -- stay on your present course of justification of stealing... that will absolutely guarantee it... I promise.


I guess I'll RACK my parents for teaching me the basics in life -- like "If it doesn't belong to you, don't fucking touch it."

Words to live by. I think other words for that are "honesty" and "trustworthiness" and "integrity." You thieves should try it sometime. No one owes you shit... deal with it.

If you're suggesting that giving your tax dollars to the local lesbian poet who can't get her work published, then yes, I agree. Same goes for the mental case living under a bridge.

To social democrats, or just the 'democratic party' ^^^ those people are oppressed. That is not a postion that real socialists or communists would agree with.

Please refrain from threatening to shoot communists for a position that they do not agree. It's quite unfair and a bit mean.

Cheers.

War Wagon wrote:What?

You're a clueless simpleton if you believe that. The world will never face a shortage of garbagemen, and they won't get paid like doctors.

Give every man, woman and child free education through the post graduate level and you won't see nearly the shortage of doctors.

RACK!

Bri wrote:PS: Nice showing by Paul in NH

Dismal.

I thought he might get about 15%.

And sadly, this is probably his high-water mark.

Oh wellz, socialism is workin' so well, let's keep rollin' with it.

BSmack wrote:

War Wagon wrote:What?

You're a clueless simpleton if you believe that. The world will never face a shortage of garbagemen, and they won't get paid like doctors.

Give every man, woman and child free education through the post graduate level and you won't see nearly the shortage of doctors.

Sure glad it's gonna be "free", cause something like that would bankrupt us if we actually had to pay for it.

Dr_Phibes wrote:And to "each according his ability" simply refers to the fact that one hour of labour is much the same as another, there is no difference - they are all equally important. For example, who is more important - a doctor or a garbage man? Without a doctor, you cannot treat a patient and he will die. Without a garbageman, plague breaks out and everyone dies. They are equally important parts of a working society.

Damn Phibes, you got my vote. Once we get that workers paradise rolling along I'm gonna get me a gig as driving range attendant dude and I'll bring in the same pay as GE's ceo.

Shweet!!!!!

Or maybe I'll just go to college for the next ohhh, I don't know, 30 years or so. One question. Getting edumacated is work too, so I get paid, right?

Either way, it beats getting up at 5 in the morning to go to a job which from time to time can be a pain in the ass.

There is a downside of course. I'm guessing that Tom Brady is gonna get tired of being blindsided by 320 lb defensive tackles for a few hunndred dollars a week. So he'll prolly quit. Maybe he can come work at the range with me.

BSmack wrote:Give every man, woman and child free education through the post graduate level and you won't see nearly the shortage of doctors.

Nope. All you'll get is a bunch of overly-educated, bitter freaks who wind up ringing you out at Borders.

Making people pay for their own college education helps to weed out the folks who are just in college for the "social aspects." There's something to be said for having to make huge sacrifices (i.e., investments) of time, effort, AND money in order for individuals to continue persevering with their educations and finally achieving and truly valuing their degree.

Making education free through grad school devalues the degree. I'd bet you'd see a hell of a lot of people going into college and grad school to party for a bit and then drop out when the coursework got to be a drag. You might argue that the minority of folk who do make it through (who might have otherwise, had the education not been free, not been able to do so) make it worthwhile, but I disagree. The waste of resources would be enormous - you'd still have to pay professors' salaries and benefits and all the other costs, the professors and administrators would have wasted their valuable time and energy with dilettantes, and the individuals trying to "find themselves" would be wasting their own time instead of working and being productive.

College, especially grad school, is not a freaking "human right." If you don't have the grades AND the money, you shouldn't go. Period.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:College, especially grad school, is not a freaking "human right." If you don't have the grades AND the money, you shouldn't go. Period.

Why not say the same thing about Kindergarten?