OT: Question for right wingers

BillB

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 1:43:41 PM1/22/12

to

Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?

Bea Foroni

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 5:49:17 PM1/22/12

to

I asked my resident right wing-nut your question. The reply, "That is
an utopian fantasy. No country could ever be so rich that they
wouldn't require its citizens to work."

I think ancient Egypt came closest to that ideal. The Nile Basin was
so rich that all the basics could be supplied with available labor.
The task of supplying the basics only took about half a year, and the
labor was idle when the Nile flooded the basin. The people needed
nothing, evidence by their lack of irrigating land adjacent to the
basin during the flooding period.

Whether or not people needed to keep busy, the leaders of Egypt felt
they did. They employed the idle labor to build monuments to keep
busy. The State employing people during idle periods is what caused
Egypt to endure for thousands of years.

popinjay999

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 6:41:23 PM1/22/12

to

On Jan 22, 10:43 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

Isn't Kuwait or one of them little oil countries like that? For that
matter, ain't Canada like that?

Dave the Clueless

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 8:08:42 PM1/22/12

to

Not to mention slave labor. And a life expectancy for the working class of
less than 50 years.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

------

Dave the Clueless

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 8:12:00 PM1/22/12

to

Of course. What a silly question. And that will work until the people who
produce that wealth get all angsty about having what they earned taken
from them by force and given to those who have not earned it. People are
funny that way.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

_____________________________________________________________________

MrBookworm

unread,

Jan 22, 2012, 11:23:52 PM1/22/12

to

Qatar, it was on 60 minutes a week ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395216n

Dean

--
"I am a troll." - Paul Popinjay 3/16/2009

____________________________________________________________________

BillB

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 2:48:42 AM1/23/12

to

On 1/22/2012 2:49 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:

> I asked my resident right wing-nut your question. The reply, "That is
> an utopian fantasy. No country could ever be so rich that they
> wouldn't require its citizens to work."

With all due respect to your resident wing-nut, that's not really
answering my question. Aside from that, it's really not really a
"Utopian" concept, as the resources exist today to make ensure those
basic needs are met for everyone. We passed that level of wealth a long,
long time ago.

BillB

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 2:56:29 AM1/23/12

to

On 1/22/2012 5:12 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Jan 22 2012 2:43 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
> Of course. What a silly question.

What's silly about it? That begs the next question: at what level of
wealth does it no longer make sense to allow citizens to do without the
basics?

You're at almost 50k per capita now....so how much higher would that
have to go before you'd say it no longer makes sense to make poor people
do without basic preventative health care?

And that will work until the people who
> produce that wealth get all angsty about having what they earned taken
> from them by force and given to those who have not earned it. People are
> funny that way.

Why do you assume that? They've been subsidizing your ass all your life,
and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.

Dave the Clueless

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:02:49 AM1/23/12

to

On Jan 23 2012 3:56 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 1/22/2012 5:12 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > On Jan 22 2012 2:43 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
> >> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
> >> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
> >> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
> >
> > Of course. What a silly question.
>
> What's silly about it? That begs the next question: at what level of
> wealth does it no longer make sense to allow citizens to do without the
> basics?

I don't know.

> You're at almost 50k per capita now....so how much higher would that
> have to go before you'd say it no longer makes sense to make poor people
> do without basic preventative health care?

Apparently more than 50k

>
>
> And that will work until the people who
> > produce that wealth get all angsty about having what they earned taken
> > from them by force and given to those who have not earned it. People are
> > funny that way.
>
> Why do you assume that? They've been subsidizing your ass all your life,
> and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.

Because it makes sense. And FWIW, I am quite grateful for the subsidies. I
grew up on WIC. You are quite free to feel good about yourself if you
didn't.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

_______________________________________________________________________

Dave the Clueless

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:04:31 AM1/23/12

to

Did we? When, exactly? And who is "we"?

Will in New Haven

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 3:33:32 PM1/23/12

to

The problem with this question is "who decides and for whom?" I guess
I'm not enough of a right-winger because I do think that the
proverbial safety net provided by public monies is a good thing but I
am not sure that I have the right to make anyone else contribute.

Once you understand that the state is force, and I learned that back
when I was a socialist, you begin to realize that there is no point in
feeling generous or satisfied that you vote goods and services for the
needy. Because you are taking from one group of people, at virtual
gunpoint, to give to another.

The question, "who is we?" asked elsethread, is very real. Once one
acknowledges that the other people in society are individuals and not
"the people," it becomes much more difficult to make decisions for
them.

Or it should.

--
Will in New Haven

Robert Ladd

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 9:51:35 PM1/23/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:xNYSq.172$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...

Is there any hypothetical point at which you will really want honest
discussions and not troll us with your socialistic viewpoints in the form of
accusatory questions? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question. We know
that the combination of accusation and trolling is your lifeblood.

Robert Ladd

BillB

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:11:13 PM1/23/12

to

What is not honest about my question? It is you who is not honest for
questioning its honesty. Can you ever address one of my posts without
attacking me personally first? Is that even remotely possible?

Back to my question...for example, what if we were *twice* as rich as we
are today (but with far more equitable income distribution)? Would you
still hold to the principle that someone who, for whatever reason, can't
compete in any meaningful way in the labor marketplace should do without
the basic necessities of life? What if we were four times as rich? Does
there come some point in increasing societal wealth when it is no longer
a morally sound position (for you) to make people go without just out of
spite? I can see how it makes some sense when resources are very scarce,
but does it make sense when the resources for basic human comfort are
relatively plentiful and easily available and affordable for all?

DDawgster

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:15:58 PM1/23/12

to

DAMN.. good post

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

--------

DDawgster

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:19:34 PM1/23/12

to

this arguement has become so "radicalised" that there are only 2 sides.
One side says 'fuckem " let em die " and they portray anyone who needs
assistance as 'welfare queens".

At some point , something reasonable has to be figured out the assist
those who get fucked by circumstance, but first you have to educate the
Right that all those needing assistance are NOT 'freeloading n**rs.

gl with that

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

_____________________________________________________________________

Steam

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 10:37:32 PM1/23/12

to

On Jan 23 2012 7:19 PM, DDawgster wrote:

> On Jan 22 2012 12:43 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
> > wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
> > suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
> > nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
> this arguement has become so "radicalised" that there are only 2 sides.
> One side says 'fuckem " let em die " and they portray anyone who needs
> assistance as 'welfare queens".

that's 2 sides? You're only arguing one side

>
> At some point , something reasonable has to be figured out the assist
> those who get fucked by circumstance, but first you have to educate the
> Right that all those needing assistance are NOT 'freeloading n**rs.
>
> gl with that
>
> > Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..
>
> Another gem from Alim Nassor
>
> _____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

johnny_t

unread,

Jan 23, 2012, 11:47:51 PM1/23/12

to

Who builds the houses? Who provides the healthcare? Where does the
food come from? Who runs the utilities?

And WHY would they?

Are you really that dumb?

It is utopia, not possible. And here is my "right" wing answer, what
kind of life is that?

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 1:05:52 AM1/24/12

to

On 1/23/2012 8:47 PM, johnny_t wrote:

> Who builds the houses? Who provides the healthcare? Where does the food
> come from? Who runs the utilities?
>
> And WHY would they?
>
> Are you really that dumb?
>
> It is utopia, not possible. And here is my "right" wing answer, what
> kind of life is that?

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you not aware that there
are countries that exist TODAY that take care of the basic needs of its
most needy citizens? What sort of bubble do you people live in? Even the
US goes *most of the way* toward doing that today.

Who builds the houses?? LOL!! The same people who build them today, silly.

Dutch

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 1:05:47 AM1/24/12

to

"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:fff0a321-d78c-4368...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 22, 1:43 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
> The problem with this question is "who decides and for whom?" I guess

Why is that such a problem? Are the basic necessities of life THAT difficult
to define? I think that reasonable people should be capable of working that
out.

You've been into the kool-aid haven't you?

> I'm not enough of a right-winger because I do think that the
> proverbial safety net provided by public monies is a good thing but I
> am not sure that I have the right to make anyone else contribute.

A "public" safety net by definition comes out of "public" monies, so by
definition it is paid for by all taxpayers.

> Once you understand that the state is force, and I learned that back
> when I was a socialist, you begin to realize that there is no point in
> feeling generous or satisfied that you vote goods and services for the
> needy. Because you are taking from one group of people, at virtual
> gunpoint, to give to another.

I have no problem with the idea of citizens with plenty being compelled to
contribute to those that lack the basic necessities of life. That is one of
the basic precepts of a civilized society along with laws, armed forces,
building codes, environmental standards, and public schools.

> The question, "who is we?" asked elsethread, is very real. Once one
> acknowledges that the other people in society are individuals and not
> "the people," it becomes much more difficult to make decisions for
> them.
>
> Or it should.

No it shouldn't. Individuals are parts of a society from which they benefit
and towards which they contribute, that's what a functioning society is.
They have a vote on how it's run, after that they can join in or go
somewhere else. Somewhere along the line you lost your way..

Robert Ladd

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 1:34:50 AM1/24/12

to

"DDawgster" <a1e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:6jk1v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Jan 22 2012 12:43 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
> this arguement has become so "radicalised" that there are only 2 sides.
> One side says 'fuckem " let em die " and they portray anyone who needs
> assistance as 'welfare queens".
>

That's the portrait that you liberals always try to paint. Few people take
that approach or attitude. But, selling that false portrayal plays well to
your target audience.

I find it amusing that the Republican politicians pander to their rich
constituents to keep their re-election coffers full, while the Democratic
politicians pander to both their rich constituents and their poor. And both
sides keep uttering the same old tired worn out phrases. And you morons on
both sides buy the regurgitated pablum as if it's the truth. Wake up.

> At some point , something reasonable has to be figured out the assist
> those who get fucked by circumstance, but first you have to educate the
> Right that all those needing assistance are NOT 'freeloading n**rs.
>

There have been a great deal of people "fucked by circumstance" that have
picked themselves up and turned that around ( both white and black, despite
another of your attempts to inject race into the mix). Our country is known
for the millions of immigrants that have come here and become wealthy beyond
their dreams simply by working hard. Most of them don't come here to get
chump-change to stand around doing nothing. And neither should those
"fucked by circumstance".

You believe that giving a person something when they are down helps them,
but that only works if they view that it's only temporary and they use that
help to get back on their feet and into the game. But I think it also gives
some people an excuse and a crutch and they know there are bleeding hearts
like you that will step in and give them something for nothing if they can
look pitiful enough, especially if you can force others to pay for it.

There are millions and millions of people that don't strive to be rich. All
they want is the "basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)". How does that work when those
people say, "No, I don't want a job, all I need is the basic necessities of
life, but thanks anyway"? There are many people with hated, boring jobs
that if given the choice of having their housing, food, medical care, etc.
taken care of, they'd throw the job over in a heartbeat.

And finally, we all know how you liberals view your giving. What would be
included in the "necessities of life"? Would it end at food, shelter,
healthcare? Or would you start finding that in this age all humanity
deserves a cell phone, a car (maybe still under warranty or even new each
year), a HD TV with 3-D, a home swimming pool or more? Who decides what
"basic necessities of life" consists of?

Oh, of course, that would be you.

Robert Ladd

> gl with that
>

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 2:34:01 AM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:eTrTq.924$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...

Oh, shithead, you mean the people who WORK.

So OBVIOUSLY someone HAS to work, so your little utopian fantasy where
people DON'T need to work is just that. Thanks for admitting you're a
fucking moron, just this once

>

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 2:36:50 AM1/24/12

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5UrTq.925$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...

Dutch the complete shithead, folks

Stupid enough to think "voting" somehow enables one person the right to
STEAL from someone else.

Taxes are the cost of citizenship. Taxes can never be fair, because "fair"
isn't universally defined, nor will it ever be

>
>

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 2:47:03 AM1/24/12

to

On 1/23/2012 11:34 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> Oh, shithead, you mean the people who WORK.
>
> So OBVIOUSLY someone HAS to work, so your little utopian fantasy where
> people DON'T need to work is just that. Thanks for admitting you're a
> fucking moron, just this once

What the hell are you people talking about? Where did I say nobody would
work? There are countries RIGHT NOW where the poor's basic needs are
met, and the vast majority of people there still work.

My question (READ CAREFULLY!) was if, from an right-winger perspective,
there could come a hypothetical point where a society becomes so fucking
rich it no longer makes sense to make poor people do without, for
example, a First World standard of health care. Obviously, there is such
a point. My question is trying to pin down right-wingers on where on the
wealth continuum that point lies.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 4:06:09 AM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:WltTq.3711$yi7....@newsfe23.iad...

> On 1/23/2012 11:34 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> Oh, shithead, you mean the people who WORK.
>>
>> So OBVIOUSLY someone HAS to work, so your little utopian fantasy where
>> people DON'T need to work is just that. Thanks for admitting you're a
>> fucking moron, just this once
>
> What the hell are you people talking about? Where did I say nobody would
> work? There are countries RIGHT NOW where the poor's basic needs are met,
> and the vast majority of people there still work.

Fuckhead (and you are one) that's what the QUESTION was about.

Did you fail reading comprehension AGAIN?

>
> My question (READ CAREFULLY!) was if, from an right-winger perspective,
> there could come a hypothetical point where a society becomes so fucking
> rich it no longer makes sense to make poor people do without, for example,
> a First World standard of health care. Obviously, there is such a point.
> My question is trying to pin down right-wingers on where on the wealth
> continuum that point lies.
>

No, shithead.
People UNWILLING to work are a class, you pathetic shitbag. AND if you let
them eat anyway, then EVERYONE wants to join that class.

Goddamn, moron, how fucked up ARE you?

Why the hell do you think people build houses? Because they enjoy hauling
lumber around, or to feed their families?

If technology ever advances so far that NOBODY needs to do anything, THEN
maybe socialism (and that's what you're talking about, whether you admit it
or not) MAY work

>
>

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 4:31:20 AM1/24/12

to

On 1/24/2012 1:06 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> Fuckhead (and you are one) that's what the QUESTION was about.

Uh, no it wasn't.

> Did you fail reading comprehension AGAIN?

Uh, I wrote the question. I think I know better than you what was meant
by it.

>> My question (READ CAREFULLY!) was if, from an right-winger perspective,
>> there could come a hypothetical point where a society becomes so fucking
>> rich it no longer makes sense to make poor people do without, for example,
>> a First World standard of health care. Obviously, there is such a point.
>> My question is trying to pin down right-wingers on where on the wealth
>> continuum that point lies.

> No, shithead.
> People UNWILLING to work are a class, you pathetic shitbag. AND if you let
> them eat anyway, then EVERYONE wants to join that class.

So people who are "unwilling" to work should not be allowed to eat (i.e.
should be allowed to die), because if you allowed such people to eat,
then nobody would want to work? LOL! Are you sure your IQ is as high
as 66?

Are you aware that countries exist TODAY where all citizens are
guaranteed some minimum standard of life (including the US). People
still chose to work.

> Goddamn, moron, how fucked up ARE you?
>
> Why the hell do you think people build houses? Because they enjoy hauling
> lumber around, or to feed their families?

Feeding their families is only a small part of their motivation.
Obviously, if all you want to do is feed your family with the least
amount of work possible, there are much easier ways to do that than
busting your hump as a construction worker.

> If technology ever advances so far that NOBODY needs to do anything, THEN
> maybe socialism (and that's what you're talking about, whether you admit it
> or not) MAY work

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That's not
what I'm talking about at all. I am talking about reaching a level of
national wealth where it no longer makes practical or moral sense to
deprive its least fortunate citizens of the necessities of life. I
happen to think the US passed that point a long time ago. Obviously,
right-wingers disagree. What I am asking is what level of wealth
right-wingers would have to be looking at before they'd decide that it
makes no sense to let a less fortunate fellow countryman suffer without
necessities like basic medical care.

Are you telling me that if per capita income in the US was $200,000
instead of $50,000, you'd still see fit to watch people suffer without
basic First World level health care?

Robert Ladd

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 4:35:17 AM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:WltTq.3711$yi7....@newsfe23.iad...

Your question doesn't make sense on more than one level.

How do you define a country's wealth? You suggest there is some "wealth
continuum" that a country can point to and show their particular position.
How do you define that wealth? What do you include, public wealth, private
wealth, the combination, do you add in goodwill and credit -- debt, both
public and private, do you calculate that somehow using GDP?

What are you suggesting that poor people should receive in the way of basic
needs to be met? Are you suggesting that they should receive these benefits
without putting forth any effort? It sounds like your only criteria for
having their basic needs fulfilled is to be poor. I don't see any reference
to why they are poor. Are they infirmed, mentally retarded, socially inept,
lazy?

How can you ask a question without having some defining criteria behind the
question?

You don't have the explicit criteria because your question wasn't meant to
actually elicit an answer, it was meant to show what bad, unfeeling people
that right-wingers are. It's your typical bullshit, Bill.

Why should anyone answer your troll questions? That's the real question,
and I'm not sure why I do. Maybe I'm just bored and want to expose you for
your trolling bullshit.

Robert Ladd

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 4:56:58 AM1/24/12

to

On 1/24/2012 1:35 AM, Robert Ladd wrote:
> How do you define a country's wealth? You suggest there is some "wealth
> continuum" that a country can point to and show their particular
> position. How do you define that wealth? What do you include, public
> wealth, private wealth, the combination, do you add in goodwill and
> credit -- debt, both public and private, do you calculate that somehow
> using GDP?

The most obvious way is per capita GDP. It's not a perfect measure, but
it gives a good general idea of a coutry's wealth. Right now the per
capita value of goods and services produced in the US is about $50,000.
Let's say we quadrupled that to $200,000 per person. Would it still make
sense to you to make some citizens do without basic health care? What if
it was $2,000,000 per capita. Would it still make sense to you to make
your fellow citizens suffer? That's the question. Is there ANY level of
national wealth where it would no longer make sense to you to allow some
of your fellow citizens to suffer without the basic necessities of life?
YES, or NO?

> What are you suggesting that poor people should receive in the way of
> basic needs to be met? Are you suggesting that they should receive these
> benefits without putting forth any effort? It sounds like your only
> criteria for having their basic needs fulfilled is to be poor. I don't
> see any reference to why they are poor. Are they infirmed, mentally
> retarded, socially inept, lazy?

> How can you ask a question without having some defining criteria behind
> the question?

This is irrelevant to my question. I asked if there was a level of
wealth for right-wingers where it would no longer make sense to make
anyone go without the basic necessities of life. That includes the
people whose economic problems you simplistically attribute to being
"socially inept" and "lazy."

> You don't have the explicit criteria because your question wasn't meant
> to actually elicit an answer,

Yes, I am looking for an answer.

it was meant to show what bad, unfeeling
> people that right-wingers are.

I don't need to show that. You do a good job of that all by yourself. I
just want to know to what extent you'd *cling to that greed* under even
more favorable economic circumstances than exist today.

>It's your typical bullshit, Bill.

It's not bullshit. It's a very straightforward question you've spent
1000 words trying not to answer.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 6:48:01 AM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:HTuTq.3862$lS6....@newsfe20.iad...

> On 1/24/2012 1:06 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> Fuckhead (and you are one) that's what the QUESTION was about.
>
> Uh, no it wasn't.

Yes, shit for brains, it was

>
> > Did you fail reading comprehension AGAIN?
>
> Uh, I wrote the question. I think I know better than you what was meant by
> it.

No, you obviously don't.
If you don't know what your own words mean, then you're beyond help

>
>>> My question (READ CAREFULLY!) was if, from an right-winger perspective,
>>> there could come a hypothetical point where a society becomes so fucking
>>> rich it no longer makes sense to make poor people do without, for
>>> example,
>>> a First World standard of health care. Obviously, there is such a point.
>>> My question is trying to pin down right-wingers on where on the wealth
>>> continuum that point lies.
>
>
>> No, shithead.
>> People UNWILLING to work are a class, you pathetic shitbag. AND if you
>> let
>> them eat anyway, then EVERYONE wants to join that class.
>
> So people who are "unwilling" to work should not be allowed to eat (i.e.
> should be allowed to die), because if you allowed such people to eat, then
> nobody would want to work? LOL! Are you sure your IQ is as high as 66?
>

You're the only moron who ever scored 66 on an IQ test (in this newsgroup)

And yeah, that's why socialism fails

> Are you aware that countries exist TODAY where all citizens are guaranteed
> some minimum standard of life (including the US). People still chose to
> work.

Um, fuckhead, no they aren't.
Some european countries are somewhat closer, and of course they have massive
unemployment because people can sit on their ass and do nothing, and choose
to

>
>> Goddamn, moron, how fucked up ARE you?
>>
>> Why the hell do you think people build houses? Because they enjoy hauling
>> lumber around, or to feed their families?
>
> Feeding their families is only a small part of their motivation.
> Obviously, if all you want to do is feed your family with the least amount
> of work possible, there are much easier ways to do that than busting your
> hump as a construction worker.
>

Hey shithead, for some people out there, that's the best job they can manage

>> If technology ever advances so far that NOBODY needs to do anything, THEN
>> maybe socialism (and that's what you're talking about, whether you admit
>> it
>> or not) MAY work
>
> Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That's not what
> I'm talking about at all. I am talking about reaching a level of national
> wealth where it no longer makes practical or moral sense to deprive its
> least fortunate citizens of the necessities of life. I happen to think the
> US passed that point a long time ago. Obviously, right-wingers disagree.
> What I am asking is what level of wealth right-wingers would have to be
> looking at before they'd decide that it makes no sense to let a less
> fortunate fellow countryman suffer without necessities like basic medical
> care.

A) See how fucked in the ass you are? You prove my point before I even make
it.

There's no definition of "neccessities". Indoor plumbing was a luxury 100
years ago. Cable TV and internet access is viewed as a "basic need" by some
people now.

>
> Are you telling me that if per capita income in the US was $200,000
> instead of $50,000, you'd still see fit to watch people suffer without
> basic First World level health care?
>

Shit for brains (and you are one) If people are unwilling to work, then they
choose to do without.

If they are UNABLE to work, due to illness, handicap, whatever, THEN safety
nets kick in.

If you wanna sit in a room and watch porn all day, then fuck you, you do
without.

Unwilling to help oneself means accepting you don't get from everyone else.

If you are REALLY shithead enough to think ANYONE should help a total
fuckoff because they don't have something they could easily obtain, then you
MUST have that 66 for an IQ you scored. No rational adult buys a coat for
the guy who set fire to his five minutes ago. Or the guy who played video
games instead of showing up for work.

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 7:00:56 AM1/24/12

to

Ok, we have a bona fide right-wing moron on record saying that no matter
how wealthy a country gets -- even if per capita incomes were, say,
$2,000,000 -- there should *never* be any guarantee of basic minimum
health care standards (or any other standards) for its poorest citizens.

Any other extreme-right nuts willing to make fools of themselves, or is
Beldim the only one?

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 7:35:55 AM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:Y3xTq.437$ep4...@newsfe14.iad...

Wait, shithead.
That is NOT what I said.

I DO realize you're a complete fucking idiot, given my MASSIVE left wing
bent on any number of issues, and yet you, the infinitely stupid fucknut,
call me "right wing"

You could try reading it again, shithead. See if you see what it really
says.

Here's a hint. I know a mental defective like you needs a lot of help.

Saying "You cannot give everyone everything" is NOT the same as saying "You
cannot give everyone SOMETHING."

Try having someone WITH a brain read it for you, shithead.

When you're done, tell me about the massive right wing support for gay
marriage,ok?

mo_ntresor

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 9:58:46 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 22 2012 11:43 AM, BillB wrote:

> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?

what percent of humanity's greatest work was done by rich kids? struggle
and work produce astounding returns.

mo_ntresor

----

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:14:53 AM1/24/12

to

mo_ntresor <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22 2012 11:43 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
>what percent of humanity's greatest work was done by rich kids?
>

All of the thinkers and scientists of the Enlightenment were
upper middle class or wealthy. Take the Founding Fathers of
the USA as an example.

Bertrand Russell said the key to happiness is security and
leisure.

--bks

Tim Norfolk

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:26:33 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24, 9:58 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For once we agree. Most of the great innovators of the past 2
centuries have been struggling-to-comfortable middle class. That's the
real danger of crushing the group. The kids of rich parents become
business leaders or lawyers.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM1/24/12

to

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jfmhtd$7o$1...@reader1.panix.com...

And the key to productivity and advancement is being a little UNHAPPY with
your lot in life.

Edison wasn't happy.

Jobs probably wasn't either

mo_ntresor

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:36:03 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24 2012 8:34 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> > For once we agree. Most of the great innovators of the past 2
> > centuries have been struggling-to-comfortable middle class. That's the
> > real danger of crushing the group. The kids of rich parents become
> > business leaders or lawyers.
>

> the kids of rich parents get jds and mbas, they don't lead law firms or
> businesses.

steal the ankle biters' kibble! i wasn't speaking LITERALLY in either
post.

mo_ntresor

_____________________________________________________________________

mo_ntresor

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:34:18 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24 2012 8:26 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > what percent of humanity's greatest work was done by rich kids? struggle
> > and work produce astounding returns.
>

> For once we agree. Most of the great innovators of the past 2
> centuries have been struggling-to-comfortable middle class. That's the
> real danger of crushing the group. The kids of rich parents become
> business leaders or lawyers.

the kids of rich parents get jds and mbas, they don't lead law firms or
businesses.

mo_ntresor

_____________________________________________________________________

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:38:29 AM1/24/12

to

Jobs and Gates were very middle class. I'll give you Edison.

--bks

Tim Norfolk

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:42:20 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24, 10:38 am, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

> Beldin the Sorcerer <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:jfmhtd$7o$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> >> mo_ntresor <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Jan 22 2012 11:43 AM, BillB wrote:
>
> >>>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
> >>>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
> >>>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
> >>>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>
> >>>what percent of humanity's greatest work was done by rich kids?
>
> >> All of the thinkers and scientists of the Enlightenment were
> >> upper middle class or wealthy. Take the Founding Fathers of
> >> the USA as an example.
>
> >> Bertrand Russell said the key to happiness is security and
> >> leisure.
>
> >And the key to productivity and advancement is being a little UNHAPPY with
> >your lot in life.
>
> >Edison wasn't happy.
>
> >Jobs probably wasn't either
>
> Jobs and Gates were very middle class. I'll give you Edison.
>

> --bks- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wouldn't call Gates middle class. His parents were wealthy.

mo_ntresor

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:53:09 AM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24 2012 8:38 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

> >And the key to productivity and advancement is being a little UNHAPPY with
> >your lot in life.
> >
> >Edison wasn't happy.
> >
> >Jobs probably wasn't either
>
> Jobs and Gates were very middle class. I'll give you Edison.

gates wasn't middle class, you idiot.

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:58:18 AM1/24/12

to

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:jfmj9l$rac$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Jobs wasn't wealthy going in.

Whether Gates was innovative is another discussion entirely

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 11:10:58 AM1/24/12

to

mo_ntresor <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 24 2012 8:38 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>
>> >And the key to productivity and advancement is being a little UNHAPPY with
>> >your lot in life.
>> >
>> >Edison wasn't happy.
>> >
>> >Jobs probably wasn't either
>>
>> Jobs and Gates were very middle class. I'll give you Edison.
>
>gates wasn't middle class, you idiot.
>

Depends where you cut off middle class from wealthy. But one
thing is for sure, his family wasn't strugging to make ends meet.

--bks

Pepe Papon

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 8:10:18 PM1/24/12

to

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:49:17 -0800 (PST), Bea Foroni
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:

>On Jan 22, 10:43 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>> Is there any hypothetical point at which a country could become so
>> wealthy that it no longer makes sense for any class of its citizens to
>> suffer without the basic necessities of life (ex. adequate health care,
>> nutritious food, decent housing, etc.)?
>

> I asked my resident right wing-nut your question. The reply, "That is
>an utopian fantasy. No country could ever be so rich that they
>wouldn't require its citizens to work."
>

> I think ancient Egypt came closest to that ideal.

Modern day Kuwait was a lot closer, or at least until the Iraqi
occupation. That set things back a bit, but the government still
provides extensive benefits that any self-respecting wingnut would
describe as socialism.

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:14:08 PM1/24/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:Y3xTq.437$ep4...@newsfe14.iad...

He said nothing of the sort. You are either lying or reading challenged.
My guess is it's the former. How do you live with yourself?

I do think he resorts to unnecessary name calling and derisive comments, but
interspersed among those bombs, he points out what most correct thinking
people agree upon. If someone puts no effort into their life, if they take
no responsibility for trying to procure their necessities, then why should
we give them those necessities?

That's pretty simple. So simple, that even if you try to distort it by
changing my words or through some lie, people will see what you are doing.
If you try to pull on me what you tried to pull on Beldin, such as, claiming
that my statement says that "there should *never* be any guarantee of basic
minimum health care standards (or any other standards) for it's poorest
citizens" then I will howl to the rafters about you lying about what I said,
just as I pointed out that you are lying about what he said when you made
that statement about him.

If you want to keep the discussion on a reasonable basis then don't twist or
alter what people say Bill. I understand it's the lawyer in you that makes
you want to distort and twist the truth to help your perspective, but I
won't let you do it to me.

Robert Ladd

Robert Ladd

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:26:34 PM1/24/12

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:9WJTq.1524$ep4...@newsfe14.iad...

The fact that you haven't a clue as to what I understand should preclude you
from even entering the fray with a response like this, but obviously you're
not easily embarrassed by your lack of understanding.

Robert Ladd

BillB

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:37:29 PM1/24/12

to

On 1/24/2012 7:14 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:

>> Ok, we have a bona fide right-wing moron on record saying that no
>> matter how wealthy a country gets -- even if per capita incomes were,
>> say, $2,000,000 -- there should *never* be any guarantee of basic
>> minimum health care standards (or any other standards) for its poorest
>> citizens.
>>
>> Any other extreme-right nuts willing to make fools of themselves, or
>> is Beldim the only one?
>>
> He said nothing of the sort.

Yes, he did. Why are you lying?

"If you wanna sit in a room and watch porn all day, then fuck you, you
do without."

"Unwilling to help oneself means accepting you don't get from everyone
else."

As I paraphrased originally, he is saying "there should never be any

guarantee of basic minimum health care standards (or any other

standards)" for someone who, in his mind, refuses to "help themselves."

> I do think he resorts to unnecessary name calling and derisive comments,
> but interspersed among those bombs, he points out what most correct
> thinking people agree upon. If someone puts no effort into their life,
> if they take no responsibility for trying to procure their necessities,
> then why should we give them those necessities?

And apparently you believe the same thing Beldumb believes. If there are
MINIMUM STANDARDS, then EVERYONE gets to enjoy that standard, no matter
what. It doesn't matter if they are addicted to porn or just won't work
because they'd rather watch TV.

> That's pretty simple. So simple, that even if you try to distort it by
> changing my words or through some lie, people will see what you are
> doing. If you try to pull on me what you tried to pull on Beldin, such
> as, claiming that my statement says that "there should *never* be any
> guarantee of basic minimum health care standards (or any other
> standards) for it's poorest citizens" then I will howl to the rafters
> about you lying about what I said, just as I pointed out that you are
> lying about what he said when you made that statement about him.
>
> If you want to keep the discussion on a reasonable basis then don't
> twist or alter what people say Bill. I understand it's the lawyer in you
> that makes you want to distort and twist the truth to help your
> perspective, but I won't let you do it to me.

I'm not distorting anything. Either you believe that EVERYONE should
enjoy a First World standard of health care or you don't. If I want to,
as a Canadian I can sit and surf porn all day if I want to, but I am
still going to enjoy the same First World standard of health care that
someone who works 22 hours a day enjoys. Nobody is going to question if
I worked hard enough, paid enough taxes, contributed enough, or anything
else. I am ENTITLED, because I am a Canadian. End of story, end of
questions. My reading is that both you and Beldumb reject that idea, *no
matter how wealthy a society may become.* If you are saying I am
misreading what you are trying to say, then we are back to my original
question. At what point along the national wealth continuum should we
offer that First World standard of care to EVERYONE, irregardless of
their personal circumstances?

~M~

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 10:51:05 PM1/24/12

to

"BillB" wrote in message news:Y3xTq.437$ep4...@newsfe14.iad...

>Ok, we have a bona fide right-wing moron on record saying that no matter
>how wealthy a country gets -- even if per capita incomes were, say,
>$2,000,000 -- there should *never* be any guarantee of basic minimum health
>care standards (or any other standards) for its poorest citizens.

Everyone has the right to whatever healthcare they can arrange for
themselves.
No one has the right to someone else's services.

--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011

~M~

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 11:24:07 PM1/24/12

to

"BillB" wrote in message news:JfvTq.4041$kp5...@newsfe18.iad...

>The most obvious way is per capita GDP. It's not a perfect measure,

It's not even a reasonable measure. Countries do not create wealth. People
do.

>Would it still make sense to you to make some citizens do without basic
>health care?

How can anyone answer this without a definition of basic healthcare?

>What if it was $2,000,000 per capita. Would it still make sense to you to
>make your fellow citizens suffer?

It never makes sense to make your fellow citizens suffer, but that's not
what we're talking about, is it?

>That's the question. Is there ANY level of national wealth where it would
>no longer make sense to you to allow some of your fellow citizens to suffer
>without the basic necessities of life? YES, or NO?

The idea that you think we should have the power to allow people things is
repulsive. It's disgusting. It is the goal of every authoritarian.

> What are you suggesting that poor people should receive in the way of
> basic needs to be met?

Whatever they can get, plus whatever anyone is willing to give them.

> Are you suggesting that they should receive these
> benefits without putting forth any effort? It sounds like your only
> criteria for having their basic needs fulfilled is to be poor. I don't
> see any reference to why they are poor. Are they infirmed, mentally
> retarded, socially inept, lazy?

It really makes no difference.

> How can you ask a question without having some defining criteria behind
> the question?

I know, right? What is basic healthcare? What are basic needs? What needs
are the ones that can be taken from someone else? If you're hungry, can you
take your neighbor's food? If you are thirsty, can you take your neighbor's
water? If you are sick, can you take your neighbor's medicine?

>This is irrelevant to my question. I asked if there was a level of wealth
>for right-wingers where it would no longer make sense to make anyone go
>without the basic necessities of life.

Shelter is a basic necessity of life, is it not?
Can you move into your neighbor's house because you have no place of your
own? Obviously, you wouldn't try to move in with the one darkie in your
vicinity, but what about the others?

>That includes the people whose economic problems you simplistically
>attribute to being "socially inept" and "lazy."

The basic problem people like you have is that everything has a cost - a
value - of some sort. Claiming a right to something that belongs to someone
else, whether it is property or production, is stealing.

>> You don't have the explicit criteria because your question wasn't meant
>> to actually elicit an answer,
>

>Yes, I am looking for an answer.

The answer is: Need does not confer right.

Tim Norfolk

unread,

Jan 24, 2012, 11:30:33 PM1/24/12

to

On Jan 24, 11:24 pm, "~M~" <~...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in messagenews:JfvTq.4041$kp5...@newsfe18.iad...

Here's a conundrum for everyone here. A mother denies vaccination
(because of religious reasons, or stupidity). Their child requires
hospitalization for measles, and the mother has minimal insurance.
Should society pay for the child's care?

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 1:23:14 AM1/25/12

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:%%MTq.1452$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...

> "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BZGdnQCRs7i34YLS...@giganews.com...

<...>

>> No one has the right to someone else's services.
>
> Thank you for at least being honest!

Honest horseshit.

Does someone accused of a crime have a right to legal counsel?

Jim

Dutch

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 1:34:50 AM1/25/12

to

"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote
> "BillB" wrote

>
>>The most obvious way is per capita GDP. It's not a perfect measure,
>
> It's not even a reasonable measure. Countries do not create wealth. People
> do.

Countries are made up of people.

>>Would it still make sense to you to make some citizens do without basic
>>health care?
>
> How can anyone answer this without a definition of basic healthcare?

All medically necessary procedures as determined by the attending physician.

>
>>What if it was $2,000,000 per capita. Would it still make sense to you to
>>make your fellow citizens suffer?
>
> It never makes sense to make your fellow citizens suffer, but that's not
> what we're talking about, is it?

If you stand by while they suffer you are allowing it.

>
>>That's the question. Is there ANY level of national wealth where it would
>>no longer make sense to you to allow some of your fellow citizens to
>>suffer without the basic necessities of life? YES, or NO?
>
> The idea that you think we should have the power to allow people things is
> repulsive. It's disgusting. It is the goal of every authoritarian.

Horseshit, you do have the power to allow or not allow people to suffer
without health care by what policies you support.

>> What are you suggesting that poor people should receive in the way of
>> basic needs to be met?
>
> Whatever they can get, plus whatever anyone is willing to give them.

That's the question, what are you willing to give?

>> Are you suggesting that they should receive these
>> benefits without putting forth any effort? It sounds like your only
>> criteria for having their basic needs fulfilled is to be poor. I don't
>> see any reference to why they are poor. Are they infirmed, mentally
>> retarded, socially inept, lazy?
>
> It really makes no difference.

Agreed

>> How can you ask a question without having some defining criteria behind
>> the question?
>
> I know, right? What is basic healthcare? What are basic needs?

Easily determined.

What needs
> are the ones that can be taken from someone else? If you're hungry, can
> you take your neighbor's food? If you are thirsty, can you take your
> neighbor's water? If you are sick, can you take your neighbor's medicine?

Those are disingenuous questions, just because I eat when I am hungry or
receive treatment when I am sick or broken does not mean I am taking
something away from someone else. The question as stated stipulated that
those who are contributing are themselves wealthy and would never have to go
without.

>>This is irrelevant to my question. I asked if there was a level of wealth
>>for right-wingers where it would no longer make sense to make anyone go
>>without the basic necessities of life.
>
> Shelter is a basic necessity of life, is it not?
> Can you move into your neighbor's house because you have no place of your
> own? Obviously, you wouldn't try to move in with the one darkie in your
> vicinity, but what about the others?

You're being a prick, deliberately.

>
>>That includes the people whose economic problems you simplistically
>>attribute to being "socially inept" and "lazy."
>
> The basic problem people like you have is that everything has a cost - a
> value - of some sort. Claiming a right to something that belongs to
> someone else, whether it is property or production, is stealing.

He never suggested that anyone steal anything.

>>> You don't have the explicit criteria because your question wasn't meant
>>> to actually elicit an answer,
>>
>>Yes, I am looking for an answer.
>
> The answer is: Need does not confer right.

You dodged the question. He didn't say need conferred right, the question is
what *should* a moral society do to address the basic needs of those can't
meet them themselves, if anything? Obviously your answer is fuck 'em, I got
mine.

American republicans are fascinating to watch, you're like living dodo
birds.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 1:36:48 AM1/25/12

to

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
news:%aNTq.1666$Tj6...@newsfe22.iad...

If they can pay for it, they can have the council of their choice.

If they can't, they get some do-gooder or someone required to fill time, who
does a half assed job.
So if the question REALLY is, do they have the right to GOOD council, no, of
course not

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 1:59:07 AM1/25/12

to

"Robert Ladd" <rla...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:jfo39j$s3f$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ulluh7hc35n90phi8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:02:49 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
>> <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> And that will work until the people who
>>>> > produce that wealth get all angsty about having what they earned
>>>> > taken
>>>> > from them by force and given to those who have not earned it. People
>>>> > are
>>>> > funny that way.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you assume that? They've been subsidizing your ass all your
>>>> life,
>>>> and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
>>>
>>>Because it makes sense.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The question was about the basics. The basics, by
>> definition, does not include luxuries. If everyone were guaranteed
>> the basics, there would be little or no impact on the incentive for
>> people to accumulate wealth to improve their lifestyles and elevate
>> their status.
>>
> Then I take it you don't believe there are millions of Americans that
> would drop out and take advantage of the guaranteed basics if there were
> no one requiring them to pursue some level of self-responsibility.

That's right, he doesn't believe that, because it is not true. How little
faith you have in your fellow countrymen.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:07:26 AM1/25/12

to

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message

news:IENTq.3419$d66...@newsfe15.iad...

> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jfo7th$cd4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
>> news:%aNTq.1666$Tj6...@newsfe22.iad...
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%%MTq.1452$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...
>>>> "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:BZGdnQCRs7i34YLS...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> No one has the right to someone else's services.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for at least being honest!
>>>
>>> Honest horseshit.
>>>
>>> Does someone accused of a crime have a right to legal counsel
>
> <...snip Beldope totally missing the point...>

No, snip the lying shithead, TOTALLY missing the point.

>
> The answer is YES THEY DO, and the service has to be provided by someone.
>

No, fuckhead, they don't jave the right to ANY legal council they WANT,
which IS what universal health care claims.

YOU, being a lying little weasal, did EXACTLY what I predicted you would do.
You hid from the point, after you took someone else's comment out of
context, and tried to hide my words when I shoved it up your ass.

> That libertard "no one has the right to someone else's services" is
> bumper-sticker horseshit for rights-fairy thralls who can't be bothered to
> actually read the Constitution.
>
> The parallel to health care is too god-damned parallel for them to admit
> without their heads exploding.

It's not even CLOSE, idiot boy.

F Lee Bailey (or his modern day equivilent) isn't available to any legal aid
eligible defendant.

They can't have him, or even really GOOD legal defence, unless someone is
feeling generous. They aren't entitled to the best money can buy, they're
entitled to what do-gooders offer them, which often isn't remotely good
enough.

You think that should be the model for health care? You could find some
right wingers MORE than willing to do that. Hell, I've proposed free clinics
for everyone with mandatory service to maintain a medical license, which
would be BETTER than the public legal aid system.

You stand right here, shithead, and state clearly you did NOT mean that
someone sick should be allowed the best care possible, you only meant they
should get some crappy care from some doctor willing to work for "medical
aid" and I'll apologize and say you're right, there's a similarity. Then
I'll watch Dutch, Willie the Canadian Fucknut, and all the other "free care
for all" boneheads lynch you

Alim Nassor

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 1:27:51 AM1/25/12

to

On Jan 24, 7:18 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 1/24/2012 5:10 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > Modern day Kuwait was a lot closer, or at least until the Iraqi
> > occupation. That set things back a bit, but the government still
> > provides extensive benefits that any self-respecting wingnut would
> > describe as socialism.
>
> "Among the benefits for Kuwaiti citizens are retirement income, marriage
> bonuses, housing loans, virtually guaranteed employment, free medical
> services, and education at all levels. By Amiri decree, the government
> occasionally disburses a portion of its budget surplus as a grant to all
> Kuwaiti citizens. In 2006, an Amiri grant of 200 Kuwaiti dinars
> (approximately $700) was paid to every citizen who applied. In 2007, the
> government implemented a debt forgiveness scheme for Kuwaiti citizens
> amounting to just over $1 billion. In February 2011, the government
> announced an Amiri grant of estimated 1.5 billion Kuwaiti dinars
> (approximately $5.3 billion), including 1,000 Kuwaiti dinars
> (approximately $3,500) to be paid to every citizen along with free
> monthly food baskets to each Kuwaiti family for 14 months."
>
> http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm
>
> Kuwait unemployment rate: 1.5 - 2%
>
> Oh snap! I guess it's only [black] Americans who are so lazy that they'd
> never work another day if they were guaranteed decent health care, right
> wingnuts?

So all you seem to want is an Uncle Sugar. No thanks. That's just
chains with a velvet covering.

Clave

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:12:34 AM1/25/12

to

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:jfo9mt$il2$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
> news:IENTq.3419$d66...@newsfe15.iad...
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:jfo7th$cd4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%aNTq.1666$Tj6...@newsfe22.iad...
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%%MTq.1452$Rh4...@newsfe21.iad...
>>>>> "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:BZGdnQCRs7i34YLS...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> No one has the right to someone else's services.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for at least being honest!
>>>>
>>>> Honest horseshit.
>>>>
>>>> Does someone accused of a crime have a right to legal counsel
>>
>> <...snip Beldope totally missing the point...>
> No, snip the lying shithead, TOTALLY missing the point.
>
>>
>> The answer is YES THEY DO, and the service has to be provided by someone.
>>
> No, fuckhead, they don't jave the right to ANY legal council they WANT,
> which IS what universal health care claims.

Um, no.

Jim

Robert Ladd

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:15:12 AM1/25/12

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:jfo9a2$h66$1...@dont-email.me...

That lack of faith is in humanity, not just Americans. I've seen it day to
day for 62 years. You've seen it too, but either you won't admit it to
yourself or you pretend that it's not the case.

Robert Ladd

johnny_t

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:21:42 AM1/25/12

to

On 1/24/12 4:00 AM, BillB wrote:
instead of showing up for work.

>
> Ok, we have a bona fide right-wing moron on record saying that no matter
> how wealthy a country gets -- even if per capita incomes were, say,
> $2,000,000 -- there should *never* be any guarantee of basic minimum
> health care standards (or any other standards) for its poorest citizens.
>

> Any other extreme-right nuts willing to make fools of themselves, or is
> Beldim the only one?

There is no fucking way, that the us has a 40x GDP increase. None. Not
in any time frame that makes any difference to me. Such extreme GDP is
almost totally meaningless. (This is assuming that he is talking REAL
GDP increase, and not inflation). This is a such a silly thing. This is
like talking about an asteroid being worth 20 trillion dollars in gold.
When if the asteroid showed up, the total value of all the gold would
likely be exactly the same. Just there would be more of it.

Why would anyone become a doctor? Unless you're talking massive
inflation of doctor services, a doctor is never going to be worth being
a doctor. Assuming real gdp growth, why would anyone do anything? How
could society operate?

You're silly question simply does not operate in any way that human
societies do. In almost no society of any scale, does a man do any
better, than the ability to struggle for his existence, and it is
sufficient.

The answer as to what is done for those that cannot struggle? I think
that no good answer has been found for humans. Except that it is
painfully hard, not the purview of the government, and not as an
expectation of anyone. The struggle of the poor is the object lesson
that keeps us as a society going, at all levels. But that it is also
true, that no matter how good we become at creating wealth, we cannot
overcome the nature of being poor, because too many will become
satisfied with sufficient. As has been proven over and over and over
historically. Always resulting in violence, death, and the rebirth of
massive struggle.

BillB

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:51:28 AM1/25/12

to

On 1/24/2012 11:21 PM, johnny_t wrote:

> There is no fucking way, that the us has a 40x GDP increase. None.

lol..of course there's no way. You are missing the point. By stating an
outrageously large hypothetical number, I am obviously trying to
determine if there is ANY point at which you'd abandon your blind
adherence to your broken ideology.

If you say yes to $2 million, then the next obvious question is "What is
the lowest amount at which you'd agree?"

Seriously johnny, that was all very obvious. You better double up on the
Geritol.

> Why would anyone become a doctor?

The same reason people become doctors in Canada: To have a very
rewarding job, high social status, and a top tier income.

Unless you're talking massive
> inflation of doctor services, a doctor is never going to be worth being
> a doctor. Assuming real gdp growth, why would anyone do anything?

Because in a very wealthy society, it really isn't that much fun to just
sit on the sidelines with the very basics. That's why so few do it now
in Canada. Pretty much anyone can get welfare here, but relatively few
do, and a large majority really need it. Why do you suppose so few
people collect welfare in Canada?

> You're silly question simply does not operate in any way that human
> societies do. In almost no society of any scale, does a man do any
> better, than the ability to struggle for his existence, and it is
> sufficient.

There is NOTHING silly about my question. It's a question that is always
at the center of public policy to one degree or another.

BillB

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 2:58:27 AM1/25/12

to

On 1/24/2012 9:39 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:yWITq.4565$YC4....@newsfe19.iad...
>> On 1/24/2012 5:14 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>
>>> No, it doesn't. The question was about the basics. The basics, by
>>> definition, does not include luxuries. If everyone were guaranteed
>>> the basics, there would be little or no impact on the incentive for
>>> people to accumulate wealth to improve their lifestyles and elevate
>>> their status.
>>
>> I think it was Robert who expressed concern that "necessities" might
>> be held include things like backyard swimming pools and a brand new
>> car each year. This is illustrative of the vacuum of intellectual
>> honesty among right-wing extremists.
>>
> Fuck you Bill. That statement shows that you are the epitome of a vacuum
> of intellectual honesty. You know perfectly well that I was using a bit
> of humorous exaggeration to point out how these types of programs grow
> out of hand.

Yes, I think that's obvious to everyone. You aren't really afraid of
*swimming pools*. We all got that, Robert, honest. You can stop fretting
now. But your *point* was obvious too, and, as I said, it's

"illustrative of the vacuum of intellectual honesty among right-wing
extremists."

We needn't worry about offering fellow citizens the necessities of life
for fear that it will get out of control, and the next thing you know
everyone will be getting free luxury items. What a joke. That's just a
dishonest, phony objection, of the variety I have come to expect from
selfish right-wingers.

I'm tired of your attempts to alter my real positions, and
> pretending I meant something I didn't.

I didn't alter your position. I basically quoted you.

>You are easily the most dishonest person on the group.

I am honest to a fault.

Others alter people's positions as a joke, or to
> mock, you alter the positions to present people in a position that they
> never advocated just to present them as you want them perceived so you
> can attack the perception. You're a lying asshole.

Your position was not altered in the slightest. Your message comes
through loud and clear, as if through a bullhorn, on a daily basis. I
don't think you give your readers nearly enough credit, Robert. To me,
you come across as one of the most incredibly selfish individuals I have
ever encountered. You're right up there with susan. A lot of
right-wingers don't want the poor to have adequate healthcare, but I get
the impression you actually spring a woody just daydreaming about them
going without.

Dutch

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 3:01:27 AM1/25/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote

> A lot of
> right-wingers don't want the poor to have adequate healthcare, but I get
> the impression you actually spring a woody just daydreaming about them
> going without.

If there's an RGP hall of fame I nominate this.

Dutch

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 3:09:46 AM1/25/12

to

"Robert Ladd" <rla...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:jfoa6c$kat$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes, some people are lazy and unmotivated by nature, but there are no more
Canadian, Dutch, Swedish, Japanese, German or French layabouts than there
are American ones. It's not like you are guaranteeing people the good life,
just the bare necessities of life. You already do it, sort of, you just do
it grudgingly.

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 6:23:05 AM1/25/12

to

I'm all for helping them on an individual basis. I do not want to see
ONE Canadian living in abject poverty. I just think they are a bit of a
special situation because they insist on living way the fuck out in the
middle of nowhere where it's almost impossible to attend to all those
needs indefinitely, and if you can at all, it's at a hellishly
exorbitant cost. In spite of all that, we've already bit the bullet and
sent enough money in there to take care of most or all of those basic
needs to this point, and it's disappeared in a fog of "self-government"
corruption with little or nothing to show for it. Even someone as
generous and righteous as me has a limit to his patience! I'm an
ex-mountain guide, and it's just kind of a rule that when you go that
far backcountry, don't count on anyone to bail you out. You're pretty
much on your own. It's a voluntary assumption of risk situation. They're
just going to have to get out there and catch some more whales, or
whatever the fuck it is they do up there to survive the -70 degree winters.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 6:35:47 AM1/25/12

to

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:sCRTq.1852$2H7...@newsfe08.iad...

Ok, so you think THEY need to change their entire way of life for you to
help them, but it's wrong to expect someone to work.

Yep. you're a shithead

>

bratt

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 8:00:07 AM1/25/12

to

On Jan 24 2012 9:37 PM, BillB wrote:

> And apparently you believe the same thing Beldumb believes. If there are
> MINIMUM STANDARDS, then EVERYONE gets to enjoy that standard, no matter
> what. It doesn't matter if they are addicted to porn or just won't work
> because they'd rather watch TV.

Tell us B-BillB what would happen if everyone chose that path? There is
no way any country would ever reach the level you speak of. Unless the
minimum standard is none at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

_______________________________________________________________________

da pickle

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 9:01:54 AM1/25/12

to

On 1/24/2012 9:14 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:

> If you [BILLbea] want to keep the discussion on a reasonable basis

Never going to happen.

bub

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 9:10:33 AM1/25/12

to

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:14:08 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rla...@cox.net>
wrote:

> I understand it's the lawyer in you

an ex divorce lawyer...quite a legal mind there

johnny_t

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 10:18:01 AM1/25/12

to

On 1/24/12 11:51 PM, BillB wrote:

> The same reason people become doctors in Canada: To have a very
> rewarding job, high social status, and a top tier income.

In a society where the GDP is 2MM/person, it is a horribly rewarding job
and has almost no statue, nor income. (this is of course assuming that
the 2mm is REAL GDP). That is the point, jobs that you think are
rewarding are nothing in this kind of society. Most jobs that you think
are worthwhile are worthless. This makes it very difficult to fill jobs
that are about maintaining society.

This is why you're question makes no sense. Because you are asking
about changes within the context of this society, in this hypothetical
mythical society that cannot or doesn't function in anyway we think it
would.

Therefor the question as YOU state it is silly. If you would like to
have a reasonable discussion, that would be a different question.

What you have provided is a rhetorical falsehood. Meaning the whole
exercise is pointless and silly.

VegasJerry

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 12:57:35 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 24 2012 9:17 PM, Robert Ladd wrote:

> "Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ulluh7hc35n90phi8...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:02:49 -0800, "Dave the Clueless"
> > <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> And that will work until the people who
> >>> > produce that wealth get all angsty about having what they earned taken
> >>> > from them by force and given to those who have not earned it. People
> >>> > are
> >>> > funny that way.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you assume that? They've been subsidizing your ass all your life,
> >>> and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.
> >>
> >>Because it makes sense.
> >

> > No, it doesn't. The question was about the basics. The basics, by
> > definition, does not include luxuries. If everyone were guaranteed
> > the basics, there would be little or no impact on the incentive for
> > people to accumulate wealth to improve their lifestyles and elevate
> > their status.
> >

> Then I take it you don't believe there are millions of Americans that would
> drop out and take advantage of the guaranteed basics if there were no one
> requiring them to pursue some level of self-responsibility.
>

> That's what I find disturbingly amusing about most of you liberals. You
> take something that seems perfectly logical to you, or to me, and project it
> across the entire population as if everyone would react the same. You seem
> to conclude that few people would take advantage of the free basics because
> they would want to advance in life, and I conclude there is a relatively
> large segment of the population that would sit around watching Judge shows
> on TV, going to the beach to surf, sitting around all day shooting the shit
> with buddies that find that lifestyle quite appealing and are perfectly
> happy to be out of the rat race.
>
> What I think is strange is that you, of all people on this group, don't see
> this. As a musician I would think you've probably seen it quite often with
> many of the people you deal with. I know quite a few former musicians, and
> when they finally gave up their dream of making a living off their music it
> almost broke their hearts. Everyone of them that I talked to about finally
> giving up that dream, said that if they had the choice of joining the rat
> race or barely getting by, being able to eat and pay their rent by playing
> gigs they'd be much happier doing the music bit, and would do it in a
> heartbeat.
>
> So you don't think there are people in all of the arts, humanities, social
> sciences with their hundreds of occupations where they have a passion for
> their avocation, but due to too few openings can't find a job in their
> field, that wouldn't take advantage for a few years if they could get it to
> pursue their dreams longer? And if we take the approach, *go ahead, we
> won't let anyone go wanting for housing, health care or food*, then there
> wouldn't be millions of takers.
>
> Hell, 99% of the 99 percenters from OWS probably fit this description and
> would take advantage of a situation like that.
>
> I think you are dreaming if you think people would just use it only if
> needed until they got back on their feet. There's a ton of them that will
> take advantage of the program so they can get off their feet and do what
> they want to all day rather than what some boss tells them to do.
>
> Robert Ladd

And this doesn't take into account the people that put the poor in that
position. Ensure a large labor pool. Refuse to hire them if they're a
minority or old. Offer them a job at substandard wages. Deny them
benefits. Force them to work free overtime. Fire them as soon as they get
close to obtaining any required benefits. Refuse them low-cost loans.
Refuse to sell them houses if they're minority. Zone against low cost
houses. Offer substandard schools. Discriminate against them any way you
can. Then bitch about the poor and unemployed. Tell the underpaid and
unemployed their problem is the poor, not the rich and Wall Street crooks
and 1% that arraigned it.

We saw this in the hollows of West Virginia and see it in slave-labor
conditions in many foreign countries. Make them poor, then blame them for
being poor. We're seeing a resurgent of that now. The rich fixing tax
rules; fixing hiring rules; fixing environmental rules; bribing
politicians so they can get subsidies for themselves*; cheaper tax rates
for the rich; fixing state rules to protect their own interests; bribing
city officials to get subsidies in tax credits; zero property taxes for a
number of years*; having cities or counties float bonds (paid for by
taxpayers) for portions of their businesses.*** Fix new rules on Wall
Street to screw small investors. Have the government pay you to not grow
crops. Arrange crop (cotton) allotments. Have the government zone small
businesses out of work ****. Have government pay you to destroy your crop.
***** Have your politician invent new restrictions to unions seeking
representations.

Gee, I wonder why those poor people are poor.

*Big oil still getting subsidies.
** Intel in Portland OR.
*** Football stadium outside Seattle (for MS partner Paul Allen's ball
team)
**** TV cable business I couldn't buy.
***** Dump milk.

Jerry 'n Vegas

---

da pickle

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 4:03:04 PM1/25/12

to

On 1/25/2012 9:18 AM, johnny_t wrote:

> Therefor the question as YOU state it is silly. If you would like to
> have a reasonable discussion, that would be a different question.
>
> What you have provided is a rhetorical falsehood. Meaning the whole
> exercise is pointless and silly.

Even considering that BILLbea would like to have a reasonable discussion
is pointless and silly.

Dutch

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 4:28:25 PM1/25/12

to

"Robert Ladd" <rla...@cox.net> wrote

> Really Bill? What about your position with regard to the Attawapiskat?
>
> Your response was:
>
> "If native people, or any people, want to live in communities that remote
> then they need to learn how to take care of their own shit, otherwise get
> their asses down to somewhere near the larger centres where help can get
> to
> them."

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 4:59:05 PM1/25/12

to

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:re96v8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

Please start a new thread for non sequitur anti-union rants.

mo_ntresor

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 6:18:05 PM1/25/12

to

On Jan 25 2012 2:59 PM, Dutch wrote:

> > what the hell do you think public unions are? you think the world still
> > needs ticket window operators, train ticket punchers, letter stampers,
> > mail sorters, and other idiot democrat functions? it's all bullshit for
> > welfare, but our welfare happens to be six figure pay with endless
> > benefits disguised as a living wage.
>
> Please start a new thread for non sequitur anti-union rants.

should i make room for idiots who don't have a clue what insurance is or
how it works?

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________

BillB

unread,

Jan 25, 2012, 6:47:05 PM1/25/12

to

On 1/25/2012 1:28 PM, Dutch wrote:

> I believe those are my words, although Bill may have expressed similar
> sentiments.

haha...I thought I did write it when he said so. You have to watch that
Robert character; he lies like crazy. It did however sound exactly like
something I'd write. Did anyone ever tell you you are a terrific writer?