I find it hysterical that liberals don't trust the government in designing a wasteful homeland security or defense budget but that somehow healthcare and other social programs will be immune to that tendency to be wasteful.
I don't object to a national healthcare system solely because I don't think I should have to pay for my grandfather's viagra. I mainly don't trust our government in running it properly.
Simply invent a new government program and prevent it from growing beyond it's original intentions. I know it's never worked before but this time it will. Because I have hope.
Pfft!
i'm not saying its going to work right away but trying something is better than nothing. I'd say research, then in 3 years start working on implementing it. Or at least fix Social Security. something.
Mabuse on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
We also need to make sure that nuclear power is abolished from the face of the Earth.
If we cannot handle terrorism, then how are we going to be able to handle a godzilla?
godzilla doesn't pull that bin laden shit. He's in your city, killing your children, so he's kind of easy to find/destroy whats a little collateral damage?
EDIT: Fuck you spacebar
Mabuse on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
We also need to make sure that nuclear power is abolished from the face of the Earth.
If we cannot handle terrorism, then how are we going to be able to handle a godzilla?
godzilla doesn't pull that bin laden shit. He's in your city, killing your children, so he's kind of easy to find/destroy whats a little collateral damage?
Jesus tapdancing Christ, Shoe. You're quoting Al Franken?
also reputable economists, and research, and things like that
I am sorry a filthy liberal jew did some of that research, I do apologize
He's a lousy comedian and is not an authority on anything. So he had an uncanny ability to regurgitate DNC talking points on a radio network currently defaulting on all of its employees wages (including his). Big deal.
I'm an engineer by trade, Shoe. Give me data, not anecdotes.
ok, here's a chart illustrating the 14 seperate years that Social Security has given out more than it's taken in, rendering that scary threat pretty meaningless
here is an article by an economist stating that a. the optimistic projections of Social Security, which have been on the money since they've started doing them, says that we will have more money in social security than we do now by Bush's projected date of bankruptcy and that b. even if there is a shortfall, it is LESS than the ones we have had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, Shoe. You're quoting Al Franken?
also reputable economists, and research, and things like that
I am sorry a filthy liberal jew did some of that research, I do apologize
He's a lousy comedian and is not an authority on anything. So he had an uncanny ability to regurgitate DNC talking points on a radio network currently defaulting on all of its employees wages (including his). Big deal.
I'm an engineer by trade, Shoe. Give me data, not anecdotes.
ok, here's a chart illustrating the 14 seperate years that Social Security has given out more than it's taken in, rendering that scary threat pretty meaningless
here is an article by an economist stating that a. the optimistic projections of Social Security, which have been on the money since they've started doing them, says that we will have more money in social security than we do now by Bush's projected date of bankruptcy and that b. even if there is a shortfall, it is LESS than the ones we have had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
God damn it, Shoe! Just because I asked you for data doesn't mean I actually wanted it! I've been drinking, man.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
Jesus tapdancing Christ, Shoe. You're quoting Al Franken?
also reputable economists, and research, and things like that
I am sorry a filthy liberal jew did some of that research, I do apologize
He's a lousy comedian and is not an authority on anything. So he had an uncanny ability to regurgitate DNC talking points on a radio network currently defaulting on all of its employees wages (including his). Big deal.
I'm an engineer by trade, Shoe. Give me data, not anecdotes.
ok, here's a chart illustrating the 14 seperate years that Social Security has given out more than it's taken in, rendering that scary threat pretty meaningless
here is an article by an economist stating that a. the optimistic projections of Social Security, which have been on the money since they've started doing them, says that we will have more money in social security than we do now by Bush's projected date of bankruptcy and that b. even if there is a shortfall, it is LESS than the ones we have had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
God damn it, Shoe! Just because I asked you for data doesn't mean I actually wanted it! I've been drinking, man.
this is what I get for picking midnight for my once a year seriousness kick.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
Nah, sorry, I don't care enough
Silence connotes assent.
"Hate is not the opposite of love. Hate and love, they are two sides of the same coin. The opposite of love is apathy."
Randall_Flagg on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
I think you all should give it a rest for the day and do what I am doing. Drink whiskey and watch House on DVD.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
hey why don't we work on a universal healthcare system
or maybe some low cost housing or even a way to grow more food without fucking up the environment so we could feed the people starving on the streets?
nah let's make a railgun. goddammit.
Shoe I love you for this post.
Seriously. If I had to make a serious response to the topic at hand, it'd sound a lot like that.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Those "people on the street" and the people who make use of low cost housing have no right to them. You ask me to subsidize a man simply because he needs housing or healthcare when you have no right to do so. The force of one's need does not guarantee one any rights additional to those possesed by all humanity. In saying that because you are poor, you have a right to my money, you claim that you, who live on the streets subsisting from garbage and waste, are better than me and that I must forfeit come rights to you.
I will do no such thing.
Every person has rights, that is to say, everybody has certain negative duties toward other people. I will not force you out of your right to life, liberty, or the puruit of happiness. Why do people have these rights? The answer is simple: because every human has an inherent moral worth, being a thinking, rationing individual.
Thus, ones entire moral worth rests on one's ability to make rational decisions. When you forfeit your ability to control your fate with rational thought, and instead subsist off another, you have thus forfeited all moral worth. Such an action lowers you to the level of the beasts, or worse!
In conclusion, wow, apparently I'm too late, and all of the debate happened while I was typing this post.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
Nah, sorry, I don't care enough
Silence connotes assent.
Ah, I know you are but what am I?
A rational human being who thus has intrinsic moral value.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
Ethnocentrist, paternalist, femi-nazi, pagan bastard. You shut your hole and never open it again.
I said a rebuttal, not nonsense that one would not be surprised to find in a chimpanzee's feces.
Look, you might as well embrace your inner liberal faggot. You're posting hear in SE++, just accept the inevitable. Now kneel down and smile like a donut.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
Ethnocentrist, paternalist, femi-nazi, pagan bastard. You shut your hole and never open it again.
I said a rebuttal, not nonsense that one would not be surprised to find in a chimpanzee's feces.
I fail to see what that has to do with the issue at hand, sir.
And that is a mannerism that I abhor among users of the internet. Adding sir to the end of responses to make them seem civil and well thought out. You are not a member of the clerisy. Don't be pretending that that sir affects in any way, shape, or form an intelligent person's perception of your admittedly dull response.
Great, we've got another douche noob who thinks he's going to prove he's the sharpest knife on the cutting board by engaging in a debate on a forum. Nice one Randall, you're basically saying that we're all retarded because we're on this stupid forum and then proceed to show that you can sink even lower than we usually do. There's no logic to your argument dickhole. It's predicated entirely upon what your values are. Logic doesn't dictate what ones values are, they merely allow you to reach conclusions that are consistent with those values.
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
Druhim on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
Ethnocentrist, paternalist, femi-nazi, pagan bastard. You shut your hole and never open it again.
I said a rebuttal, not nonsense that one would not be surprised to find in a chimpanzee's feces.
I fail to see what that has to do with the issue at hand, sir.
And that is a mannerism that I abhor among users of the internet. Adding sir to the end of responses to make them seem civil and well thought out. You are not a member of the clerisy. Don't be pretending that that sir affects in any way, shape, or form an intelligent person's perception of your admittedly dull response.
You are making an enemy out of someone who agrees with you, dumbass. Now for the last time, ON YOUR KNEES BITCH!
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
Ethnocentrist, paternalist, femi-nazi, pagan bastard. You shut your hole and never open it again.
I said a rebuttal, not nonsense that one would not be surprised to find in a chimpanzee's feces.
I fail to see what that has to do with the issue at hand, sir.
And that is a mannerism that I abhor among users of the internet. Adding sir to the end of responses to make them seem civil and well thought out. You are not a member of the clerisy. Don't be pretending that that sir affects in any way, shape, or form an intelligent person's perception of your admittedly dull response.
It's a green vegetible that comes in stalks. You can put peanut butter on it or disappoint your children with it when it is presented as a snack that is both healthy and delicious.
Posts
i'm not saying its going to work right away but trying something is better than nothing. I'd say research, then in 3 years start working on implementing it. Or at least fix Social Security. something.
Pretty ladies worked on Kong. Did anyone try that with Gorzirra?
godzilla doesn't pull that bin laden shit. He's in your city, killing your children, so he's kind of easy to find/destroy whats a little collateral damage?
EDIT: Fuck you spacebar
Precisely why we need big fucking railguns!
We should install power outlets in America's obese.
They lose weight, while are homes can be heated with the power of a thousand bags of Cheetos.
Everyone wins.
ok, here's a chart illustrating the 14 seperate years that Social Security has given out more than it's taken in, rendering that scary threat pretty meaningless
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/VI_cyoper_history.html#wp113052
here is an article by an economist stating that a. the optimistic projections of Social Security, which have been on the money since they've started doing them, says that we will have more money in social security than we do now by Bush's projected date of bankruptcy and that b. even if there is a shortfall, it is LESS than the ones we have had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451&Itemid=45
That all red voters can be indentified by the color of their skin. Ergo: rednecks?
And that when someone registers for the Democratic Party, they recieve a free beret and black turtle neck?
And that the demographics of America's voting public can be drawn along strict, unbroken geogaphic lines?
It's the God's truth.
God damn it, Shoe! Just because I asked you for data doesn't mean I actually wanted it! I've been drinking, man.
C'mon guys can you hook a brotha up with a rebuttal or something?
who needs to rebut idiocy you spouted just to get a reaction
this is what I get for picking midnight for my once a year seriousness kick.
No.
Can you just point out a flaw in my logic or something? I don't want to have gone to the trouble of typing all that for nothing.
Nah, sorry, I don't care enough
Silence connotes assent.
Ah, I know you are but what am I?
A rational human being who thus has intrinsic moral value.
I said a rebuttal, not nonsense that one would not be surprised to find in a chimpanzee's feces.
Look, you might as well embrace your inner liberal faggot. You're posting hear in SE++, just accept the inevitable. Now kneel down and smile like a donut.
And that is a mannerism that I abhor among users of the internet. Adding sir to the end of responses to make them seem civil and well thought out. You are not a member of the clerisy. Don't be pretending that that sir affects in any way, shape, or form an intelligent person's perception of your admittedly dull response.
In that case, we should be addressing you Sir Bongi. But not the other way around.
who knighted you?
The Burger King doesn't count
although that would be fucking cool
Sir Raneados, Lord of the Fries
Touche!
and goodnight. I'm going to bed now.
And by "going to bed," I mean "translating Latin."
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
You are making an enemy out of someone who agrees with you, dumbass. Now for the last time, ON YOUR KNEES BITCH!
I'll never get published.
That's really all you can do with it, actually.