Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
All In!
111 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave the Clueless
Nov 14, 2012, 9:52:07 AM11/14/12
to
LOL!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
-------
To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
-------
To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
razzo...@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2012, 10:37:50 AM11/14/12
to
WTF is so funny?
RazzO
RazzO
Dutch
Nov 14, 2012, 2:52:56 PM11/14/12
to
"needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
you already have. The fallacy extends from there. It evokes the image of
a Scrooge-like character sitting on the floor with his money looking at
it adoringly proclaiming, "You are MINE, my precious, all MINE." If you
think like this you should have voted Romney/Ryan, that's them in a
nutshell.
Follow
Nov 14, 2012, 3:10:09 PM11/14/12
to
defensive and mostly insane. But you're right about Dave voting
Romney/Ryan, it's odd that he didn't, unless he voted for Gary Johnson
instead.
Follow :)
Dutch
Nov 14, 2012, 3:54:19 PM11/14/12
to
You don't find this phrase odd? "'Need' means wanting someone else's money."
First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing, and as I already
pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
part of the sentence can be omitted, and it may not be money, it might
be medical care. So we are left with "Need means wanting.." and as I
already said, that is not even correct. So an amended version is "Need
means needing something." which is hardly worth saying.
Follow
Nov 14, 2012, 6:41:39 PM11/14/12
to
they say "need" they mean something else. His statement is meant to
decipher what he is pointing to as "liberal vocabulary." I think in the
end, it's rather poignant. If he were to define the word "need" with a
dictionary, then you're right, it would be pointless. He is not showing
you a dictionary, but an interpretation.
Hope that helps.
Follow :)
FL Turbo
Nov 14, 2012, 9:19:52 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:41:39 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
When talking to a Liberal, sometimes the only real question is, are
they being "wilfully obtuse" or are they simply "mentally obtuse"
Hard to tell.
they being "wilfully obtuse" or are they simply "mentally obtuse"
Hard to tell.
~M~
Nov 14, 2012, 9:52:01 PM11/14/12
to
RazzO wrote in message
news:8257855b-a22b-4f82...@googlegroups.com...
>WTF is so funny?
You're right. What's so funny about a government run by these buffoons,
liars, cheats, and criminals? It's a tragedy.
--
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because
I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered,
and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course
of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1787
news:8257855b-a22b-4f82...@googlegroups.com...
>WTF is so funny?
You're right. What's so funny about a government run by these buffoons,
liars, cheats, and criminals? It's a tragedy.
--
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because
I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered,
and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course
of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1787
Dutch
Nov 14, 2012, 9:59:16 PM11/14/12
to
coherent word salad with an undercurrent of "Keep yer greasy hands offa
my money."
Dutch
Nov 14, 2012, 10:11:25 PM11/14/12
to
actually ever need help? Do conservatives? What about conservative
hurricane victims?
If you really want to get technical, there are no needs, only wants.
risky biz
Nov 14, 2012, 11:18:03 PM11/14/12
to
employees what he really means is that he wants the employees to work for
him with the implication that there's someting to be embarrassed about he
would be totally uncomprehending and not see the equivalence between the
two.
Follow
Nov 15, 2012, 2:58:18 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14 2012 9:18 PM, risky biz wrote:
> I guess if you told this dope 'Follow' that when an employer needs
> employees what he really means is that he wants the employees to work for
> him with the implication that there's someting to be embarrassed about he
> would be totally uncomprehending and not see the equivalence between the
> two.
Risky, I think your drug cocktail needs adjusting again. You started off
> I guess if you told this dope 'Follow' that when an employer needs
> employees what he really means is that he wants the employees to work for
> him with the implication that there's someting to be embarrassed about he
> would be totally uncomprehending and not see the equivalence between the
> two.
just barely coherent, but then kinda fell off the map. Maybe you can get
back to me after you feel better there big guy.
Follow :)
Will in New Haven
Nov 15, 2012, 10:53:41 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 3:55 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >>> LOL!
>
> >http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwe...
> Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >>> LOL!
>
>
> >>> -------
> >>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
> >>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
> >>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>
> >> Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
> >> "needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
> >> it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
> >> you already have. The fallacy extends from there. It evokes the image of
> >> a Scrooge-like character sitting on the floor with his money looking at
> >> it adoringly proclaiming, "You are MINE, my precious, all MINE." If you
> >> think like this you should have voted Romney/Ryan, that's them in a
> >> nutshell.
>
> > Your interpretation is nothing like mine. Your interpretation seems very
> > defensive and mostly insane. But you're right about Dave voting
> > Romney/Ryan, it's odd that he didn't, unless he voted for Gary Johnson
> > instead.
>
> > Follow :)
>
> I believe he said he voted for Obama.
>
> You don't find this phrase odd? "'Need' means wanting someone else's money."
>
> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
and as I already
> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
> part of the sentence can be omitted,
No. A person can need or want something and _work_ or bargain with
> >>> -------
> >>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
> >>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
> >>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>
> >> Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
> >> "needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
> >> it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
> >> you already have. The fallacy extends from there. It evokes the image of
> >> a Scrooge-like character sitting on the floor with his money looking at
> >> it adoringly proclaiming, "You are MINE, my precious, all MINE." If you
> >> think like this you should have voted Romney/Ryan, that's them in a
> >> nutshell.
>
> > Your interpretation is nothing like mine. Your interpretation seems very
> > defensive and mostly insane. But you're right about Dave voting
> > Romney/Ryan, it's odd that he didn't, unless he voted for Gary Johnson
> > instead.
>
> > Follow :)
>
> I believe he said he voted for Obama.
>
> You don't find this phrase odd? "'Need' means wanting someone else's money."
>
> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
and as I already
> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
> part of the sentence can be omitted,
someone to get it, which would mean it belonged to her or him, rather
than wanting what belonged to someone else. The tag line lacks
brevity, so it is an abomination, but it isn't as stupid as your
interpretation makes it.
--
Will in New Haven
"Fuck you, we do what we want" Paul Kantner, circa 1975
and it may not be money, it might
> be medical care. So we are left with "Need means wanting.." and as I
> already said, that is not even correct. So an amended version is "Need
>
> - Show quoted text -
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 11:05:37 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 8:53 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
> and as I already
> > pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
> > for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
> > part of the sentence can be omitted,
>
> No. A person can need or want something and _work_ or bargain with
> someone to get it, which would mean it belonged to her or him, rather
> than wanting what belonged to someone else. The tag line lacks
> brevity, so it is an abomination, but it isn't as stupid as your
> interpretation makes it.
you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
> > First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
> and as I already
> > pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
> > for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
> > part of the sentence can be omitted,
>
> No. A person can need or want something and _work_ or bargain with
> someone to get it, which would mean it belonged to her or him, rather
> than wanting what belonged to someone else. The tag line lacks
> brevity, so it is an abomination, but it isn't as stupid as your
> interpretation makes it.
whores they bankroll and elect.
mo_ntresor
risky biz
Nov 15, 2012, 12:52:09 PM11/15/12
to
Employer needs employees therefore he wants something the potential
employee has with the implication that there's something wrong with that.
Someone could use that for their signature line and assume that it has
some kind of meaning while no one else would. Follow think's Dave's
signature line has some kind of meaning but he can't explain what it is or
see the equivalence between the two sentences.
Will in New Haven
Nov 15, 2012, 2:33:06 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 11:08 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
No, imbecile, I _said_ that this was a flaw in the system. I was,
without putting stupid scare quotes around it, saying the same thing
you were. There is no way that public employee's unions should have
that advantage.
--
Will in New Haven
"Fuck you, we do what we want" Paul Kantner, 1975
wrote:
without putting stupid scare quotes around it, saying the same thing
you were. There is no way that public employee's unions should have
that advantage.
--
Will in New Haven
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 2:36:45 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 12:33 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
> > whores they bankroll and elect.
>
> No, imbecile, I _said_ that this was a flaw in the system. I was,
> without putting stupid scare quotes around it, saying the same thing
> you were. There is no way that public employee's unions should have
> that advantage.
amen, sister!
> > you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
> > whores they bankroll and elect.
>
> No, imbecile, I _said_ that this was a flaw in the system. I was,
> without putting stupid scare quotes around it, saying the same thing
> you were. There is no way that public employee's unions should have
> that advantage.
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 4:21:46 PM11/15/12
to
contributions of unions to the Democrats and billionaire businessmen to
the Republicans?
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 4:34:04 PM11/15/12
to
Will in New Haven wrote:
working at two jobs barely making ends meet, or worse, gets deathly ill,
needs some help and there is no practical way for him to "bargain for"
that help.
There *are* always shiftless ne'er-do-wells who exploit social programs,
but those clowns do not represent the liberal ideal. Besides its
clumsiness, that is my main objection to the tagline, it is a false
generalization.
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 4:46:14 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 2:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
> > whores they bankroll and elect.
>
> Would you be interested in seeing a contrast between the campaign
> contributions of unions to the Democrats and billionaire businessmen to
> the Republicans?
i can choose not to do business with assholes. i'm forced to pay public
> > you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
> > whores they bankroll and elect.
>
> Would you be interested in seeing a contrast between the campaign
> contributions of unions to the Democrats and billionaire businessmen to
> the Republicans?
union pieces of shit. why do you dipshits fuck this up every damn time?
mo_ntresor
Steam
Nov 15, 2012, 4:43:47 PM11/15/12
to
Steam
Nov 15, 2012, 4:46:33 PM11/15/12
to
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 5:05:37 PM11/15/12
to
gas pump or buy groceries.
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 5:16:11 PM11/15/12
to
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 5:20:11 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 3:05 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > i can choose not to do business with assholes. i'm forced to pay public
> > union pieces of shit. why do you dipshits fuck this up every damn time?
>
> You do business with billionaire businessmen every time you pull up to a
> gas pump or buy groceries.
not even close. further, i can CHOOSE to shop somewhere else; i can't
> > i can choose not to do business with assholes. i'm forced to pay public
> > union pieces of shit. why do you dipshits fuck this up every damn time?
>
> You do business with billionaire businessmen every time you pull up to a
> gas pump or buy groceries.
choose to not pay my taxes. seriously, do you ever get anything right?
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 5:52:30 PM11/15/12
to
is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
Steam
Nov 15, 2012, 6:06:43 PM11/15/12
to
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 6:12:39 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 3:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > not even close. further, i can CHOOSE to shop somewhere else; i can't
> > choose to not pay my taxes. seriously, do you ever get anything right?
>
> > not even close. further, i can CHOOSE to shop somewhere else; i can't
> > choose to not pay my taxes. seriously, do you ever get anything right?
>
> Multinational corporations control almost everything, and the proportion
> is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
> choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
why do you keep spouting nonsense? i can farm my own, shop at a local
> is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
> choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
farmer's market, or shop at a safeway. i can walk to work, ride my bike,
drive a prius, or buy an f250. i can run my house on gas, electric,
propane, or i can shit in a pit and run it on methane. i can freeze my
ass to death. one thing i can't CHOOSE is to NOT pay public union
fuckwads. the state will steal my assets and / or imprison me.
mo_ntresor
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 6:13:48 PM11/15/12
to
mo_ntresor
Nov 15, 2012, 6:21:44 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15 2012 4:13 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > why do you keep spouting nonsense? i can farm my own, shop at a local
> > farmer's market, or shop at a safeway. i can walk to work, ride my bike,
> > drive a prius, or buy an f250. i can run my house on gas, electric,
> > propane, or i can shit in a pit and run it on methane. i can freeze my
> > ass to death. one thing i can't CHOOSE is to NOT pay public union
> > fuckwads. the state will steal my assets and / or imprison me.
>
> grow up
> > why do you keep spouting nonsense? i can farm my own, shop at a local
> > farmer's market, or shop at a safeway. i can walk to work, ride my bike,
> > drive a prius, or buy an f250. i can run my house on gas, electric,
> > propane, or i can shit in a pit and run it on methane. i can freeze my
> > ass to death. one thing i can't CHOOSE is to NOT pay public union
> > fuckwads. the state will steal my assets and / or imprison me.
>
pretty tough dealing with people who actually think isn't it? how would
you cannucks ever learn anything if wasn't for guys like me?
mo_ntresor
brewmaster
Nov 15, 2012, 6:19:22 PM11/15/12
to
Because they are made in China they cost half what they would cost if made
here. Apple sells WAY more iThings because of this price difference,
hence makes tons of money, and puts lots of that money into developing new
iThings, which we need, and are made in China, cheaply, so we can buy
them. I, for one, like having all these great new things created for me
to acquire year after year after year. If it were up to those like you
we'd all still be watching a prehistoric bird chipping letters on a stone
tablet.
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 6:39:51 PM11/15/12
to
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 6:47:31 PM11/15/12
to
Canada is covered in permafrost and in total darkness year round so it
might be hard up here.
BillB
Nov 15, 2012, 6:45:21 PM11/15/12
to
On 11/15/2012 2:05 PM, Dutch wrote:
> You do business with billionaire businessmen every time you pull up to a
> gas pump
Bad example. mo had ridden the subway all his life.
> You do business with billionaire businessmen every time you pull up to a
> gas pump
brewmaster
Nov 15, 2012, 6:51:35 PM11/15/12
to
parents and grandparents slaved in factories so that we could get
educations and work in offices instead of factories, and we got there, and
here you are wanting us to work in factories again. Do you understand why
shipping those jobs overseas (or turning them over to robots) is always
good for everyone?
Follow
Nov 15, 2012, 6:53:38 PM11/15/12
to
charity because they are against government welfare. It's much easier not
to draw distinction and burn strawmen ("made up positions" for the
chronically stupid among us).
Follow :)
Follow
Nov 15, 2012, 6:56:54 PM11/15/12
to
To your misguided parallel, Risky, there is a difference between an
indigent "need" being money from someone else and an employer "need" for
an employee. Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
and forced taxation? This can't possibly be too difficult to understand,
even for you.
Follow :)
fffurken
Nov 15, 2012, 7:03:18 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 11:23 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > Multinational corporations control almost everything, and the proportion
> > is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
> > choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
>
> Why? That makes no sense. Example: Apple makes iThings in China.
> Because they are made in China they cost half what they would cost if made
> here. Apple sells WAY more iThings because of this price difference,
> hence makes tons of money, and puts lots of that money into developing new
> iThings, which we need
You mean want.
> > Multinational corporations control almost everything, and the proportion
> > is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
> > choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
>
> Why? That makes no sense. Example: Apple makes iThings in China.
> Because they are made in China they cost half what they would cost if made
> here. Apple sells WAY more iThings because of this price difference,
> hence makes tons of money, and puts lots of that money into developing new
> iThings, which we need
brewmaster
Nov 15, 2012, 7:13:00 PM11/15/12
to
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 7:18:34 PM11/15/12
to
want government handouts. Strawmen abound!
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 7:19:23 PM11/15/12
to
Follow wrote:
> Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> and forced taxation? This can't possibly be too difficult to understand,
> even for you.
Would you prefer voluntary taxation?
> Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> and forced taxation? This can't possibly be too difficult to understand,
> even for you.
Will in New Haven
Nov 15, 2012, 8:01:24 PM11/15/12
to
Democrats, are huge. When my union contributed to a candidate they
were giving my dues money to people I didn't necessarily support, in
fact usually to people I did NOT support. And union contributions are
very large also.
--
Will in New Haven
Dutch
Nov 15, 2012, 9:25:31 PM11/15/12
to
Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Nov 15, 4:23 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Nov 15 2012 8:53 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>>>> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
>>>> and as I already
>>>>> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
>>>>> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
>>>>> part of the sentence can be omitted,
>>
>>>> No. A person can need or want something and _work_ or bargain with
>>>> someone to get it, which would mean it belonged to her or him, rather
>>>> than wanting what belonged to someone else. The tag line lacks
>>>> brevity, so it is an abomination, but it isn't as stupid as your
>>>> interpretation makes it.
>>
>>> you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
>>> whores they bankroll and elect.
>>
>> Would you be interested in seeing a contrast between the campaign
>> contributions of unions to the Democrats and billionaire businessmen to
>> the Republicans?
>
> The contributions by rich people, to the Republicans AND to the
> Democrats, are huge. When my union contributed to a candidate they
> were giving my dues money to people I didn't necessarily support, in
> fact usually to people I did NOT support. And union contributions are
> very large also.
Large is a relative term. I doubt that union contributions are of the
> On Nov 15, 4:23 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> mo_ntresor wrote:
>>> On Nov 15 2012 8:53 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>>>> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing,
>>>> and as I already
>>>>> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
>>>>> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
>>>>> part of the sentence can be omitted,
>>
>>>> No. A person can need or want something and _work_ or bargain with
>>>> someone to get it, which would mean it belonged to her or him, rather
>>>> than wanting what belonged to someone else. The tag line lacks
>>>> brevity, so it is an abomination, but it isn't as stupid as your
>>>> interpretation makes it.
>>
>>> you're the guy who believes public unions "negotiate" with politician
>>> whores they bankroll and elect.
>>
>> Would you be interested in seeing a contrast between the campaign
>> contributions of unions to the Democrats and billionaire businessmen to
>> the Republicans?
>
> The contributions by rich people, to the Republicans AND to the
> Democrats, are huge. When my union contributed to a candidate they
> were giving my dues money to people I didn't necessarily support, in
> fact usually to people I did NOT support. And union contributions are
> very large also.
same order of magnitude as corporate.
risky biz
Nov 15, 2012, 10:06:45 PM11/15/12
to
words "voluntary commerce" or "forced taxation" so you're talking about
something not related to Dave's signature line, which is the subject of
discussion here. Try to focus.
In any case, If the people democratically elect representatives who
formulate tax policy then your construction of "forced taxation" is also
conceptually defective.
Why don't you just make a clean break with it and admit you hate
Americans? Life would be simpler for you that way rather than pretending
you're a loyal American victimized by freedom and democracy.
Pepe Papon
Nov 16, 2012, 2:45:48 AM11/16/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:52:56 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>Dave the Clueless wrote:
>> LOL!
>>
>> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
>>
>> -------
>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>>
>
>Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
>"needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
>it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
>you already have.
Never mind that - the main problem with the tag line is that it's just
plain bullshit, a deliberate mischaracterization of liberal views.
--
Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>Dave the Clueless wrote:
>> LOL!
>>
>> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
>>
>> -------
>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges
>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>>
>
>Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
>"needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
>it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
>you already have.
Never mind that - the main problem with the tag line is that it's just
plain bullshit, a deliberate mischaracterization of liberal views.
--
Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
Pepe Papon
Nov 16, 2012, 2:48:43 AM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:12:39 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15 2012 3:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> > not even close. further, i can CHOOSE to shop somewhere else; i can't
>> > choose to not pay my taxes. seriously, do you ever get anything right?
>>
>> Multinational corporations control almost everything, and the proportion
>> is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
>> choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
>
>why do you keep spouting nonsense? i can farm my own,
Good luck with that living in Chicago.
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15 2012 3:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> > not even close. further, i can CHOOSE to shop somewhere else; i can't
>> > choose to not pay my taxes. seriously, do you ever get anything right?
>>
>> Multinational corporations control almost everything, and the proportion
>> is growing every year. Unless you are one of a very few you have no
>> choice. I wouldn't mind boycotting Chinese made goods, good luck with that.
>
>why do you keep spouting nonsense? i can farm my own,
Pepe Papon
Nov 16, 2012, 2:51:22 AM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:51:35 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> I'd pay more for North American made products if they were available.
>
>You and I and everyone else have heard for our entire lives about how our
>parents and grandparents slaved in factories so that we could get
>educations and work in offices instead of factories, and we got there, and
>here you are wanting us to work in factories again.
That's a fallacy. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that he
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> I'd pay more for North American made products if they were available.
>
>You and I and everyone else have heard for our entire lives about how our
>parents and grandparents slaved in factories so that we could get
>educations and work in offices instead of factories, and we got there, and
>here you are wanting us to work in factories again.
wants the laborers who would have been working in factories to be able
to find jobs.
Pepe Papon
Nov 16, 2012, 2:53:41 AM11/16/12
to
manufactured it?
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 3:22:24 AM11/16/12
to
then petulantly start some non-existent semantics argument and expect that
your diversion might be successful? I'm sorry Risky, but it doesn't take
a great intellect to see through your ruse here.
> In any case, If the people democratically elect representatives who
> formulate tax policy then your construction of "forced taxation" is also
> conceptually defective.
forcefully. Therefore, it is forced, whether you vote for it or you
don't. Bottom line is, you can give someone the power to hit you, by
handing them a stick. When they swing the stick after you've asked them
not to, it is still force being used. Just because a majority has given
them a mandate to use the force, doesn't make it right. Look up
"Non-Aggression Principle."
> Why don't you just make a clean break with it and admit you hate
> Americans? Life would be simpler for you that way rather than pretending
> you're a loyal American victimized by freedom and democracy.
What made this nation great and what made it so that wastrels like you can
ride on its coat-tails for more than a century, pointing at others and
stealing their wealth through your supposedly "justified force." The
founders of this country would be on my side. You, are an embarrassment
to your nationality.
Don't ask such a ridiculous question again.
Follow :)
fffurken
Nov 16, 2012, 6:33:27 AM11/16/12
to
On 15 Nov, 23:58, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To your misguided parallel, Risky, there is a difference between an
> indigent "need" being money from someone else and an employer "need" for
> an employee. Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> and forced taxation?
Isn't the word 'forced' redundant? Do you know of any other kind of
> To your misguided parallel, Risky, there is a difference between an
> indigent "need" being money from someone else and an employer "need" for
> an employee. Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> and forced taxation?
tax besides 'forced'? Are you another idiot wingnut who thinks tax
should be like charity, i.e. voluntary?
Seriously, if you child like morons ever did get your own country, it
would be a disaster and you'd all be begging to come back in short
order. Those survivors that is, after the ammunition ran out.
fffurken
Nov 16, 2012, 6:41:34 AM11/16/12
to
On 16 Nov, 00:13, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > Why? That makes no sense. Example: Apple makes iThings in China.
> > > Because they are made in China they cost half what they would cost if made
> > > here. Apple sells WAY more iThings because of this price difference,
> > > hence makes tons of money, and puts lots of that money into developing new
> > > iThings, which we need
>
> > You mean want.
>
> need
It may be difficult for an Apple fanboy to realise this, but you don't
> > > Why? That makes no sense. Example: Apple makes iThings in China.
> > > Because they are made in China they cost half what they would cost if made
> > > here. Apple sells WAY more iThings because of this price difference,
> > > hence makes tons of money, and puts lots of that money into developing new
> > > iThings, which we need
>
> > You mean want.
>
> need
actually need an iThing. In terms of 'need', think more along the
lines of food on the table.
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 10:44:23 AM11/16/12
to
shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
prosperity.
In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
begin launching rockets at them.
When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
moron."
And yes, the word "forced" is redundant. But you understand, I was
addressing Risky. I had to keep it simple.
Follow :)
fffurken
Nov 16, 2012, 11:43:32 AM11/16/12
to
On 16 Nov, 15:48, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
> win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
> fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
> just want to raise taxes.
You don't know what you're talking about but don't let that stop you.
> In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
> win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
> fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
> just want to raise taxes.
I wouldn't, as it happens, be an advocate of raising taxes only. It
seems the only people on RGP who hold that kind of extreme (and
unrealistic) view on how the deficit should be addressed are those for
spending cuts only.
> Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
> American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
> begin launching rockets at them.
to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
Hamas military leader).
> When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
> moron."
da pickle
Nov 16, 2012, 12:06:44 PM11/16/12
to
BillB is doomed from the beginning.
risky biz
Nov 16, 2012, 1:17:02 PM11/16/12
to
of a word or words or phrase. That isn't the case here. All I did was
point out that you are imagining there are words in Dave's signature line
which aren't there. You may think they're there but no one else does.
Maybe someone similarly delusional as you can pop up and claim they see
them, too.
> > In any case, If the people democratically elect representatives who
> > formulate tax policy then your construction of "forced taxation" is also
> > conceptually defective.
>
> Another semantic failure. When taxes aren't paid, they are retrieved
> forcefully. Therefore, it is forced, whether you vote for it or you
> don't. Bottom line is, you can give someone the power to hit you, by
> handing them a stick. When they swing the stick after you've asked them
> not to, it is still force being used. Just because a majority has given
> them a mandate to use the force, doesn't make it right. Look up
> "Non-Aggression Principle."
You're fundamentally wrong, 'Follow'. If elected representatives formulate
laws and regulations they are right, not wrong just because a few nuts
don't like them. There is in our Constitution a mechanism to strike down
laws and regulations formulated by elected representatives which violate
the Constitution and contrary to your wild imaginings the judicial branch
is not going to decide that taxes are unconstitutional.
> > Why don't you just make a clean break with it and admit you hate
> > Americans? Life would be simpler for you that way rather than pretending
> > you're a loyal American victimized by freedom and democracy.
>
> Because I am a believer in the way America worked when it was conceived.
> What made this nation great and what made it so that wastrels like you can
> ride on its coat-tails for more than a century, pointing at others and
> stealing their wealth through your supposedly "justified force." The
> founders of this country would be on my side. You, are an embarrassment
> to your nationality.
>
> Don't ask such a ridiculous question again.
checks and balances which has for a couple of centuries now maintained the
legacy they gave us. Your fevered dream that they preferred sociopathic
nutcases to The People is asinine.
My quintuple great-grandfather is recognized by the Daughters Of The
American Revolution for Patriotic Service and my sextuple
great-grandfather was a signatory to the Blissland Complaint. So take your
faux-Founders name dropping and shove it up your ass.
mo_ntresor
Nov 16, 2012, 1:23:13 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 11:21 AM, risky biz wrote:
> > We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains
>
> All you did was get born as a presumptive, playacting ignoramus 200 years
> > We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains
>
> later.
what happened to acting like pickle and chasing travel's skirt around?
mo_ntresor
risky biz
Nov 16, 2012, 1:21:29 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 8:44 AM, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 16 2012 4:33 AM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > On 15 Nov, 23:58, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To your misguided parallel, Risky, there is a difference between an
> > > indigent "need" being money from someone else and an employer "need" for
> > > an employee. Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> > > and forced taxation?
> >
> > Isn't the word 'forced' redundant? Do you know of any other kind of
> > tax besides 'forced'? Are you another idiot wingnut who thinks tax
> > should be like charity, i.e. voluntary?
> >
> > Seriously, if you child like morons ever did get your own country, it
> > would be a disaster and you'd all be begging to come back in short
> > order. Those survivors that is, after the ammunition ran out.
>
> We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains
> On Nov 16 2012 4:33 AM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > On 15 Nov, 23:58, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To your misguided parallel, Risky, there is a difference between an
> > > indigent "need" being money from someone else and an employer "need" for
> > > an employee. Do you understand the difference between voluntary commerce
> > > and forced taxation?
> >
> > Isn't the word 'forced' redundant? Do you know of any other kind of
> > tax besides 'forced'? Are you another idiot wingnut who thinks tax
> > should be like charity, i.e. voluntary?
> >
> > Seriously, if you child like morons ever did get your own country, it
> > would be a disaster and you'd all be begging to come back in short
> > order. Those survivors that is, after the ammunition ran out.
>
> We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains
All you did was get born as a presumptive, playacting ignoramus 200 years
later.
later.
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 2:17:43 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 11:17 AM, risky biz wrote:
> The Founders are not on your side. They provided a Constitution with
> checks and balances which has for a couple of centuries now maintained the
> legacy they gave us. Your fevered dream that they preferred sociopathic
> nutcases to The People is asinine.
>
> My quintuple great-grandfather is recognized by the Daughters Of The
> American Revolution for Patriotic Service and my sextuple
> great-grandfather was a signatory to the Blissland Complaint. So take your
> faux-Founders name dropping and shove it up your ass.
That's an interesting Samurai Greeting, but it says nothing about you. I
> The Founders are not on your side. They provided a Constitution with
> checks and balances which has for a couple of centuries now maintained the
> legacy they gave us. Your fevered dream that they preferred sociopathic
> nutcases to The People is asinine.
>
> My quintuple great-grandfather is recognized by the Daughters Of The
> American Revolution for Patriotic Service and my sextuple
> great-grandfather was a signatory to the Blissland Complaint. So take your
> faux-Founders name dropping and shove it up your ass.
don't care if your father was James Madison, it doesn't mean he agrees
with your bullshit.
In the end, Risky, I don't think the founders intended for anyone to be
taxed 60% or more of their earnings under any circumstances.
Follow :)
risky biz
Nov 16, 2012, 2:22:57 PM11/16/12
to
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 2:20:04 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 9:43 AM, fffurken wrote:
> He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> Hamas military leader).
I'm sorry. It's hard for me to type while in such a state of disbelief.
> He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> Hamas military leader).
Are you saying that Israel fired *first*??
Follow :)
Clave
Nov 16, 2012, 2:22:34 PM11/16/12
to
"Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n3gin9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 2:25:50 PM11/16/12
to
Follow :)
risky biz
Nov 16, 2012, 2:27:21 PM11/16/12
to
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 2:35:09 PM11/16/12
to
Follow :)
risky biz
Nov 16, 2012, 3:16:44 PM11/16/12
to
Will in New Haven
Nov 16, 2012, 3:46:54 PM11/16/12
to
claim that the other guy started it. The people elected leadership
that promised them war with Israel. War with Israel has the
inconvenient ingredient of the Isrealis shooting you. They got what
they voted for.
Follow
Nov 16, 2012, 4:10:02 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 1:46 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16 2012 9:43 AM, fffurken wrote:
> >
> > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > I'm sorry. It's hard for me to type while in such a state of disbelief..
> On Nov 16, 2:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16 2012 9:43 AM, fffurken wrote:
> >
> > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > Are you saying that Israel fired *first*??
>
> It just depends on where you start counting. Both sides can honestly
> claim that the other guy started it. The people elected leadership
> that promised them war with Israel. War with Israel has the
> inconvenient ingredient of the Isrealis shooting you. They got what
> they voted for.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
I'm talking about this particular conflict. In the current conflict,
>
> It just depends on where you start counting. Both sides can honestly
> claim that the other guy started it. The people elected leadership
> that promised them war with Israel. War with Israel has the
> inconvenient ingredient of the Isrealis shooting you. They got what
> they voted for.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Israel most certainly didn't fire first. They were taking missiles from
Gaza and Hamas first and actually went to the UN to ask for (and got)
permission for their missile assassination of the Hamas Military Leader.
Follow :)
fffurken
Nov 16, 2012, 7:39:09 PM11/16/12
to
Follow
Nov 17, 2012, 12:00:25 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 5:39 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Nov 16, 7:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > I'm sorry. It's hard for me to type while in such a state of disbelief..
> On Nov 16, 7:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a tendency
> > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > Are you saying that Israel fired *first*??
>
> What does that have to do with Obama?
It has to do with how informed you are about anything you're typing about.
>
> What does that have to do with Obama?
Seriously, you guys have gotten really lazy lately. Read a little, then
argue.
Follow :)
fffurken
Nov 17, 2012, 12:43:14 AM11/17/12
to
You'd make even FL Turbo envious with that gibberish.
Follow
Nov 17, 2012, 1:40:06 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16 2012 10:43 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Nov 17, 5:03 am, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16 2012 5:39 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 7:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a
tendency
> > > > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > > > I'm sorry. It's hard for me to type while in such a state of
disbelief..
> > > > Are you saying that Israel fired *first*??
> >
> > > What does that have to do with Obama?
> >
> > It has to do with how informed you are about anything you're typing about..
> On Nov 17, 5:03 am, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16 2012 5:39 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 7:23 pm, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > He's not "my guy", I am not American. But I also don't have a
tendency
> > > > > to blame Obama for just about everything like you just did for for
> > > > > rockets being fired into Israel (which follows an Israeli military
> > > > > operation launched in the Gaza strip and the assassination of the
> > > > > Hamas military leader).
> >
> > > > I'm sorry. It's hard for me to type while in such a state of
disbelief..
> > > > Are you saying that Israel fired *first*??
> >
> > > What does that have to do with Obama?
> >
> > Seriously, you guys have gotten really lazy lately. Read a little, then
> > argue.
> >
> > Follow :)
>
> Please consider yourself barred.
>
> You'd make even FL Turbo envious with that gibberish.
Barred from what? You think you're Paul, telling people they can't reply
> > argue.
> >
> > Follow :)
>
> Please consider yourself barred.
>
> You'd make even FL Turbo envious with that gibberish.
to you or something? Only Paul can do that.
Follow :)
Pepe Papon
Nov 17, 2012, 3:55:58 AM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:24 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Because I am a believer in the way America worked when it was conceived.
You believe in slavery? You believe that women shouldn't have the
right to vote? Really?
>What made this nation great and what made it so that wastrels like you can
>ride on its coat-tails for more than a century, pointing at others and
>stealing their wealth through your supposedly "justified force." The
>founders of this country would be on my side.
You would be wrong. From Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #36:
"...and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any
real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it
will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and
arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed
point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be
practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public
treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions
which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous
classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the
government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a
proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the
least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
wrote:
>Because I am a believer in the way America worked when it was conceived.
right to vote? Really?
>What made this nation great and what made it so that wastrels like you can
>ride on its coat-tails for more than a century, pointing at others and
>stealing their wealth through your supposedly "justified force." The
>founders of this country would be on my side.
"...and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any
real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it
will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and
arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed
point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be
practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public
treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions
which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous
classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the
government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a
proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the
least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
Pepe Papon
Nov 17, 2012, 4:11:58 AM11/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
>shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
>representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
>the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
>millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
>prosperity.
The free market was not invented in America. The free market created
prosperity, but it created other problems.
>In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
>win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
>fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
>just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
>going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
>establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
This is gibberish.
>Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
>American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
>begin launching rockets at them.
You're lying when you pretend that we started losing jobs when Obama
got elected. The economy was already hemorrhaging jobs when Obama
took office. The rate of job loss started dropping almost
immediately after he came in. The idea that Obama is responsible for
those early job losses is nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.
>When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
>moron."
That might be due to the fact that nothing you said is accurate.
wrote:
>We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
>shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
>representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
>the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
>millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
>prosperity.
prosperity, but it created other problems.
>In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
>win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
>fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
>just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
>going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
>establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
>Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
>American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
>begin launching rockets at them.
got elected. The economy was already hemorrhaging jobs when Obama
took office. The rate of job loss started dropping almost
immediately after he came in. The idea that Obama is responsible for
those early job losses is nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.
>When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
>moron."
Alim Nassor
Nov 17, 2012, 4:14:13 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 2:55 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:24 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>
That's one. Do you really want to play Dueling Founding Fathers on
taxation?
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:24 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>
taxation?
Alim Nassor
Nov 17, 2012, 4:18:14 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 2:55 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:24 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>
Hamilton. He does it himself.
Alexander Hamilton:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The
powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature
of the limited government established by the people of America.
mo_ntresor
Nov 17, 2012, 8:08:45 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17 2012 2:18 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> > You would be wrong. From Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #36:
> >
> > "...and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any
> > real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it
> > will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and
> > arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed
> > point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be
> > practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public
> > treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions
> > which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous
> > classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the
> > government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a
> > proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the
> > least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
>
> > You would be wrong. From Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #36:
> >
> > "...and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any
> > real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it
> > will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and
> > arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed
> > point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be
> > practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public
> > treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions
> > which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous
> > classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the
> > government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a
> > proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the
> > least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
>
> I don't even need to cite any of the other Founding Fathers to counter
> Hamilton. He does it himself.
> Alexander Hamilton:
>
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The
> powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature
> of the limited government established by the people of America.
hamilton would shit himself if he saw the disaster welfare state
> Hamilton. He does it himself.
> Alexander Hamilton:
>
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The
> powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature
> of the limited government established by the people of America.
embarrassment his federal government's become.
mo_ntresor
Alim Nassor
Nov 17, 2012, 8:15:34 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 7:13 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I believe you are correct. Let's see what one of the most brilliant
men that ever lived thought.
Benjamin Franklin:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
richer.
wrote:
men that ever lived thought.
Benjamin Franklin:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
richer.
mo_ntresor
Nov 17, 2012, 8:25:39 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17 2012 6:15 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> > hamilton would shit himself if he saw the disaster welfare state
> > embarrassment his federal government's become.
>
> > hamilton would shit himself if he saw the disaster welfare state
> > embarrassment his federal government's become.
>
> I believe you are correct. Let's see what one of the most brilliant
> men that ever lived thought.
>
> Benjamin Franklin:
>
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
> I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
> easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
> traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
> public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
> themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
> less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
> richer.
that doesn't sound so great to bureaucrats interested in grabbing and
> men that ever lived thought.
>
> Benjamin Franklin:
>
> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
> I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
> easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
> traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
> public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
> themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
> less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
> richer.
controlling bigger and bigger pieces of the pie.
mo_ntresor
da pickle
Nov 17, 2012, 8:50:22 AM11/17/12
to
mo_ntresor
Nov 17, 2012, 9:00:03 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17 2012 6:50 AM, da pickle wrote:
> >> hamilton would shit himself if he saw the disaster welfare state
> >> embarrassment his federal government's become.
> >
> >> hamilton would shit himself if he saw the disaster welfare state
> >> embarrassment his federal government's become.
> >
> > I believe you are correct. Let's see what one of the most brilliant
> > men that ever lived thought.
> >
> > Benjamin Franklin:
> >
> > I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
> > I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
> > easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
> > traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
> > public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
> > themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
> > less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
> > richer.
>
> This part of the thread will now be ignored by the usual suspects.
this country was founded by guys who sought to do what everybody else was
> > men that ever lived thought.
> >
> > Benjamin Franklin:
> >
> > I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
> > I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them
> > easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I
> > traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more
> > public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for
> > themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
> > less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became
> > richer.
>
> This part of the thread will now be ignored by the usual suspects.
doing. hard to tell whether franklin and hamilton would have spent more
time humping obamacare or trying to become obama's job tsar.
mo_ntresor
Follow
Nov 17, 2012, 1:25:36 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17 2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
> >shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
> >representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
> >the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
> >millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
> >prosperity.
>
> The free market was not invented in America. The free market created
> prosperity, but it created other problems.
It wasn't conceived here, but here was its most elaborate experiment. It
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
> >shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
> >representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
> >the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
> >millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
> >prosperity.
>
> The free market was not invented in America. The free market created
> prosperity, but it created other problems.
succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of anyone. It created far fewer
problems than any other system. Now we are on the road to new systems,
with their old, greater problems.
> >In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
> >win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
> >fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
> >just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
> >going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
> >establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
>
> This is gibberish.
>
> >Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
> >American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
> >begin launching rockets at them.
>
> You're lying when you pretend that we started losing jobs when Obama
> got elected. The economy was already hemorrhaging jobs when Obama
> took office. The rate of job loss started dropping almost
> immediately after he came in. The idea that Obama is responsible for
> those early job losses is nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.
office? It has now been 4 years of blaming the last guy. It took Reagan
less than that to turn it around after the Carter disaster. He did it
without whining and running 2 campaigns on the same whine line. Is more
of this "it was the other guy" shuffling what we can expect for 4 more
years?
Sure, it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
fault that it's WORSE. His policies aren't working and never have. How
much longer before you understand this? Wanna give him another 4 years
after this 4 if he keeps failing like he is?
> >When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
> >moron."
>
> That might be due to the fact that nothing you said is accurate.
>
> --
>
> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
and pretending what I'm saying is false. The evidence is in front of you.
Even Obama's "7.8" unemployment rate before the election was modified up.
I expect it to be much higher this quarter than even the last lying
numbers.
But whatever, I'm the liar. You're just the guy who can't accept reality.
Follow :)
BillB
Nov 17, 2012, 4:03:25 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 10:25 AM, Follow wrote:
> Sure, it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
> fault that it's WORSE.
Economic illiterate.
> Sure, it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
> fault that it's WORSE.
ramashiva
Nov 17, 2012, 4:14:38 PM11/17/12
to
Based on the number of libertarian whackjobs who post on RGP, you would think they represent a sizable minority of the population. They do not. They are a tiny, insignificant minority. The Libertarian Party equalled its high water mark in presidential elections this year by garnering 1% of the vote.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
mo_ntresor
Nov 17, 2012, 4:33:55 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17 2012 2:14 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> > Economic illiterate.
>
> That's an understatement. Clinically delusional would be more accurate.
Follow and his fellow
> libertarian whackjobs seem to think it is possible for a modern nation state
to operate without
> taxing its citizens.
>
> Based on the number of libertarian whackjobs who post on RGP, you would
think they represent a
> sizable minority of the population. They do not. They are a tiny,
insignificant minority. The
> Libertarian Party equalled its high water mark in presidential elections
this year by garnering 1%
> of the vote.
can you count the strawmen? all libertarians believe in the necessity of
> > Economic illiterate.
>
> That's an understatement. Clinically delusional would be more accurate.
Follow and his fellow
> libertarian whackjobs seem to think it is possible for a modern nation state
to operate without
> taxing its citizens.
>
> Based on the number of libertarian whackjobs who post on RGP, you would
think they represent a
> sizable minority of the population. They do not. They are a tiny,
insignificant minority. The
> Libertarian Party equalled its high water mark in presidential elections
this year by garnering 1%
> of the vote.
taxes. most favor taxing use to income to avoid disincentives.
mo_ntresor
ramashiva
Nov 17, 2012, 4:51:46 PM11/17/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:38:25 PM UTC-8, mo_ntresor wrote:
> can you count the strawmen?
There is no strawman. The constant railing against taxation as an immoral use of force speaks for itself.
> can you count the strawmen?
> all libertarians believe in the necessity of
> taxes. most favor taxing use to income to avoid disincentives.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
FL Turbo
Nov 17, 2012, 7:28:20 PM11/17/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:11:25 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:41:39 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 14 2012 1:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Follow wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave the Clueless wrote:
>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
>>>>>>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician
>>> arranges
>>>>>>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
>>>>>> "needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
>>>>>> it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
>>>>>> you already have. The fallacy extends from there. It evokes the image of
>>>>>> a Scrooge-like character sitting on the floor with his money looking at
>>>>>> it adoringly proclaiming, "You are MINE, my precious, all MINE." If you
>>>>>> think like this you should have voted Romney/Ryan, that's them in a
>>>>>> nutshell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation is nothing like mine. Your interpretation seems very
>>>>> defensive and mostly insane. But you're right about Dave voting
>>>>> Romney/Ryan, it's odd that he didn't, unless he voted for Gary Johnson
>>>>> instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow :)
>>>>
>>>> I believe he said he voted for Obama.
>>>>
>>>> You don't find this phrase odd? "'Need' means wanting someone else's money."
>>>>
>>>> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing, and as I already
>>>> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
>>>> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
>>>> part of the sentence can be omitted, and it may not be money, it might
>>>> be medical care. So we are left with "Need means wanting.." and as I
>>>> already said, that is not even correct. So an amended version is "Need
>>>> means needing something." which is hardly worth saying.
>>>
>>> The point he's making, which should be easy to pick up on, is that when
>>> they say "need" they mean something else. His statement is meant to
>>> decipher what he is pointing to as "liberal vocabulary." I think in the
>>> end, it's rather poignant. If he were to define the word "need" with a
>>> dictionary, then you're right, it would be pointless. He is not showing
>>> you a dictionary, but an interpretation.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps.
>>>
>> When talking to a Liberal, sometimes the only real question is, are
>> they being "wilfully obtuse" or are they simply "mentally obtuse"
>>
>> Hard to tell.
>>
>
>So obviously you understand it. So is he saying that liberals don't
>actually ever need help? Do conservatives? What about conservative
>hurricane victims?
>
>If you really want to get technical, there are no needs, only wants.
>
Well, golly.
I definitely want to breathe every single minute.
So that's only a want but not a need?
>FL Turbo wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:41:39 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 14 2012 1:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Follow wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave the Clueless wrote:
>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwell-all-in.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> To a liberal, 'Need' means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means
>>>>>>> wanting to keep your own money. 'Compassion' is when a politician
>>> arranges
>>>>>>> the transfer from a person who earned money to a person who didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your tagline makes no sense, it's circular and redundant. Anyone who
>>>>>> "needs" something necessarily doesn't have it, therefore by definition
>>>>>> it must be "someone else's". You will never in your life need anything
>>>>>> you already have. The fallacy extends from there. It evokes the image of
>>>>>> a Scrooge-like character sitting on the floor with his money looking at
>>>>>> it adoringly proclaiming, "You are MINE, my precious, all MINE." If you
>>>>>> think like this you should have voted Romney/Ryan, that's them in a
>>>>>> nutshell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation is nothing like mine. Your interpretation seems very
>>>>> defensive and mostly insane. But you're right about Dave voting
>>>>> Romney/Ryan, it's odd that he didn't, unless he voted for Gary Johnson
>>>>> instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow :)
>>>>
>>>> I believe he said he voted for Obama.
>>>>
>>>> You don't find this phrase odd? "'Need' means wanting someone else's money."
>>>>
>>>> First of all "need" and "want" are not the same thing, and as I already
>>>> pointed out, in every possible case where I need something, or want it
>>>> for that matter, it is by definition "someone else's", therefore that
>>>> part of the sentence can be omitted, and it may not be money, it might
>>>> be medical care. So we are left with "Need means wanting.." and as I
>>>> already said, that is not even correct. So an amended version is "Need
>>>> means needing something." which is hardly worth saying.
>>>
>>> The point he's making, which should be easy to pick up on, is that when
>>> they say "need" they mean something else. His statement is meant to
>>> decipher what he is pointing to as "liberal vocabulary." I think in the
>>> end, it's rather poignant. If he were to define the word "need" with a
>>> dictionary, then you're right, it would be pointless. He is not showing
>>> you a dictionary, but an interpretation.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps.
>>>
>> When talking to a Liberal, sometimes the only real question is, are
>> they being "wilfully obtuse" or are they simply "mentally obtuse"
>>
>> Hard to tell.
>>
>
>So obviously you understand it. So is he saying that liberals don't
>actually ever need help? Do conservatives? What about conservative
>hurricane victims?
>
>If you really want to get technical, there are no needs, only wants.
>
Well, golly.
I definitely want to breathe every single minute.
So that's only a want but not a need?
Dutch
Nov 17, 2012, 9:13:07 PM11/17/12
to
living. Your desire for air is based on your want to go on living. Wants
aren't necessarily trivial, to you, but they're all wants based on
premises you set up. Suicide bombers don't need to live, in fact they
want above all to die. We just call things we want very much "needs" but
the list is arbitrary.
Alim Nassor
Nov 17, 2012, 9:21:21 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 8:14 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> FL Turbo wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:11:25 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> FL Turbo wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:41:39 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>
> FL Turbo wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:11:25 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> FL Turbo wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 14 2012 1:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>> Follow wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >>>>>>>> LOL!
>
> >>>>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/abc-denver-channel-broadwe...
>
> >>>> On Nov 14 2012 1:54 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>> Follow wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >>>>>>>> LOL!
>
arguments lately. Have you seen your doctor lately?
Dutch
Nov 17, 2012, 9:39:41 PM11/17/12
to
Alim Nassor
Nov 17, 2012, 9:53:36 PM11/17/12
to
goal of an individual human. Life. To achieve that goal, he must
breathe. That is a need. Not a want. There are many needs. Your
disagreement with them does not negate them. The list of needs may be
arbitrary and changing, but it is still a list of "needs".
Dutch
Nov 17, 2012, 10:04:42 PM11/17/12
to
or as contingent to some specific goal. If you apply for a job for
example you may be required to supply your own tools, therefore that is
a *need* specific to that goal. But it's not an absolute need, because
you don't need that particular job, you may not even want it. That's all
I'm saying, needs are just a type of want.
Pepe Papon
Nov 18, 2012, 1:06:45 AM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:04:42 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely. Your definition of need is faulty. What is the primary
>> goal of an individual human. Life. To achieve that goal, he must
>> breathe. That is a need. Not a want. There are many needs. Your
>> disagreement with them does not negate them. The list of needs may be
>> arbitrary and changing, but it is still a list of "needs".
>
>A need is nothing more than a want on which you place a high priority,
>or as contingent to some specific goal. If you apply for a job for
>example you may be required to supply your own tools, therefore that is
>a *need* specific to that goal. But it's not an absolute need, because
>you don't need that particular job, you may not even want it. That's all
>I'm saying, needs are just a type of want.
Most people would consider the goal of survival as fundamental. Most
>> Absolutely. Your definition of need is faulty. What is the primary
>> goal of an individual human. Life. To achieve that goal, he must
>> breathe. That is a need. Not a want. There are many needs. Your
>> disagreement with them does not negate them. The list of needs may be
>> arbitrary and changing, but it is still a list of "needs".
>
>A need is nothing more than a want on which you place a high priority,
>or as contingent to some specific goal. If you apply for a job for
>example you may be required to supply your own tools, therefore that is
>a *need* specific to that goal. But it's not an absolute need, because
>you don't need that particular job, you may not even want it. That's all
>I'm saying, needs are just a type of want.
people would consider this a given when discussing needs vs. wants.
Pepe Papon
Nov 18, 2012, 1:12:05 AM11/18/12
to
Founders would be on his side. Perhaps some of them would. This
example, however, is from The Federalist, the document widely
considered to reflect the Founder's intent in creating the
Constitution.
Alim Nassor 1
Nov 18, 2012, 1:17:10 AM11/18/12
to
Pepe Papon
Nov 18, 2012, 1:25:23 AM11/18/12
to
quote I posted addressed Follow's comment about "stealing wealth".
Taxation is not stealing, and the wealthy are expected to bear the
greatest burden.
Follow
Nov 18, 2012, 1:31:44 AM11/18/12
to
the same and they just go round and round. I would think other people
would get bored of it too. I come back now and then to remind myself of
the ridiculous arguments and then go away again. When I forget a few
months down the line, I'll log on again.
Ramashiva in particular has disappointed me. He used to at least
righteously fly off the handle at people, but now it seems pretty
indiscriminate. Also, he used to at least argue and make points in his
flurries of profanity, no more. These days, he dodges points and hopes to
slide in under the radar. If you don't look up his points, he will manage
it too.
Maybe I'm being trolled by Ramashiva. Who knows.
I invited Ramashiva to meet up once, think I even promised to get him a
meal or beer or something. He didn't go for it.
Follow :)
Pepe Papon
Nov 18, 2012, 1:37:41 AM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:25:36 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 17 2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
>> >shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
>> >representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
>> >the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
>> >millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
>> >prosperity.
>>
>> The free market was not invented in America. The free market created
>> prosperity, but it created other problems.
>
>It wasn't conceived here, but here was its most elaborate experiment. It
>succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of anyone. It created far fewer
>problems than any other system. Now we are on the road to new systems,
>with their old, greater problems.
The experiment was no more elaborate here than it was in Great
Britain. And while it certainly created more prosperity.your
assertion that it created far fewer problems than any other system is
dubious.
>
>> >In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
>> >win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
>> >fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
>> >just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
>> >going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
>> >establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
>>
>> This is gibberish.
>>
>> >Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
>> >American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
>> >begin launching rockets at them.
>>
>> You're lying when you pretend that we started losing jobs when Obama
>> got elected. The economy was already hemorrhaging jobs when Obama
>> took office. The rate of job loss started dropping almost
>> immediately after he came in. The idea that Obama is responsible for
>> those early job losses is nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.
>
>Did I say the economy wasn't in a bad state somewhere before Obama took
>office?
You certainly implied it. the job losses were caused by Obama getting
elected.
> It has now been 4 years of blaming the last guy. It took Reagan
>less than that to turn it around after the Carter disaster. He did it
>without whining and running 2 campaigns on the same whine line. Is more
>of this "it was the other guy" shuffling what we can expect for 4 more
>years?
You're pretending that all recessions are created equal. The current
one has more in common with the 1930s than the 1980s, as both this one
and the Depression were the results of meltdowns of the financial
system.
>Sure, it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
>fault that it's WORSE.
Have some more Kool Aid.
>His policies aren't working and never have. How
>much longer before you understand this? Wanna give him another 4 years
>after this 4 if he keeps failing like he is?
His policies have been blocked by the opposition for the past 2 years.
In the 2 years before that, the economy had improved dramatically. How
wrote:
>On Nov 17 2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >We actually got one once. Back in 1776, we threw off the chains from our
>> >shitbag leaders at the time who wanted to bleed us with taxes while not
>> >representing us. In less than 2 centuries, that country was built to be
>> >the top country on the planet, exceeding countries that had been there for
>> >millenia, but still didn't understand how the free market created
>> >prosperity.
>>
>> The free market was not invented in America. The free market created
>> prosperity, but it created other problems.
>
>It wasn't conceived here, but here was its most elaborate experiment. It
>succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of anyone. It created far fewer
>problems than any other system. Now we are on the road to new systems,
>with their old, greater problems.
Britain. And while it certainly created more prosperity.your
assertion that it created far fewer problems than any other system is
dubious.
>
>> >In the meantime, these countries who wanted to hold their power decided to
>> >win by convincing you of lies instead of fighting. It's working
>> >fantastically. We are broke, but you still don't want to cut budgets, you
>> >just want to raise taxes. We can't possible continue the way we are
>> >going, but your head is in the sand. We are destroying our excellent
>> >establishments one by one, the most recent one being healthcare.
>>
>> This is gibberish.
>>
>> >Your guy gets elected, we lose thousands of jobs overnight, a giant
>> >American company is about to go out of business, and Isreal's detractors
>> >begin launching rockets at them.
>>
>> You're lying when you pretend that we started losing jobs when Obama
>> got elected. The economy was already hemorrhaging jobs when Obama
>> took office. The rate of job loss started dropping almost
>> immediately after he came in. The idea that Obama is responsible for
>> those early job losses is nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.
>
>Did I say the economy wasn't in a bad state somewhere before Obama took
>office?
elected.
> It has now been 4 years of blaming the last guy. It took Reagan
>less than that to turn it around after the Carter disaster. He did it
>without whining and running 2 campaigns on the same whine line. Is more
>of this "it was the other guy" shuffling what we can expect for 4 more
>years?
one has more in common with the 1930s than the 1980s, as both this one
and the Depression were the results of meltdowns of the financial
system.
>Sure, it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
>fault that it's WORSE.
>His policies aren't working and never have. How
>much longer before you understand this? Wanna give him another 4 years
>after this 4 if he keeps failing like he is?
In the 2 years before that, the economy had improved dramatically. How
much longer before you understand this?
>
>
>> >When someone brings this to your attention, you call them a "child like
>> >moron."
>>
>> That might be due to the fact that nothing you said is accurate.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
>> >moron."
>>
>> That might be due to the fact that nothing you said is accurate.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
> You're just the guy who can't accept reality.
Back atcha.
ramashiva
Nov 18, 2012, 2:08:15 AM11/18/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:33:26 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:
> Ramashiva in particular has disappointed me. He used to at least
> righteously fly off the handle at people, but now it seems pretty
> indiscriminate. Also, he used to at least argue and make points in his
> flurries of profanity, no more. These days, he dodges points and hopes to
> slide in under the radar. If you don't look up his points, he will manage
> it too.
I haven't dodged anything, and your arguments about taxation aren't worthy of a retarded urchin. I gave you a WSJ source showing that the allegations on the union website came from the creditors, yet you are still repeating the lie that the allegations came from the union.
> Ramashiva in particular has disappointed me. He used to at least
> righteously fly off the handle at people, but now it seems pretty
> indiscriminate. Also, he used to at least argue and make points in his
> flurries of profanity, no more. These days, he dodges points and hopes to
> slide in under the radar. If you don't look up his points, he will manage
> it too.
> Maybe I'm being trolled by Ramashiva. Who knows.
> I invited Ramashiva to meet up once, think I even promised to get him a
> meal or beer or something. He didn't go for it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BillB
Nov 18, 2012, 2:08:27 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 10:31 PM, Follow wrote:
>I come back now and then to remind myself of
> the ridiculous arguments and then go away again.
Ridiculous arguments like:
>I come back now and then to remind myself of
> the ridiculous arguments and then go away again.
"it was bad when Obama got there, but it's WORSE now and it's OBAMA's
fault that it's WORSE."
on it by knowledgeable people?
Dutch
Nov 18, 2012, 2:36:25 AM11/18/12
to
desire for thrills trumps survival, like extreme base jumpers, or for
whom survival means failure, like a suicide bomber. The only valid use
of the word need is in a context like needing a specific ingredient to
make a recipe. I understand your point, but I think it's helpful to look
at it this way. Most people's list of what they consider "needs" is way
too long. I NEED a new IPhone!
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages