Quote from: lessthantolerant on June 16, 2012, 05:32:05 AM
You left out responsibility and accountability. Solar is right in the repect that too many people of the last 40 years (this really started in 70's) have forgotten their family responsibilities. caring for family embers or parents because they know their are government stipends.

Furthermore, caring for fellow man in a manner call charity.

Much of responsibility and accountability have been forgotten because of the government and socialist ideas.

I agree, it did seem to happen during Carters watch, though I can't point to any specific moment, like oral sex wasn't sex under Clinton, kind of moment.

The country would be in sooo much better shape if personal accountability and shame were reintroduced.
I see the removal of shame for living on other peoples money, like food stamps seem to be the straw that broke our backs.
Once it was no longer embarrassing to take a handout, the treasury was like an armored car busted open in the street, the money is up for grabs.
Now we see ads on TV recruiting recipients for food stamps, this Marxist Gov has n0o shame either.

Scifi, the one thing you need to understand, is many here weren't born conservative, like you, many went through stages of liberalism.
As youths they felt, rather than thought, it's when emotion enters the equation you run into serious problems, especially where Govt is concerned.
Libs love to use the Govt to steal from others to fulfill these emotional needs/demands, which is why we are a Republic, not a full Democracy, under a Republic form of Govt, laws were established to keep whims in check, in other words, we were established as a Conservative country many years ago by our founders.

It's this reason alone we are slow to react to change, sudden change is a liberal ideal, one that disrupts order.
Our country has always been successful because of it's conservative ideals, it's when you implant lib ideals, you disrupt our very way of life.
Take entitlements, the word itself is a misnomer, no one is entitled to other peoples money, never!!!
Hussein Care, another that disrupts the function of the country, another is his Green energy bull shit, Green being the new Red for communism.
His energy programs are bankrupting the country, all based on a theory, but this theory was just a ruse to kill Capitalism.

You see why Conservatives are slow to change, the country bases it's investments on long term forecasts, but throw a liberal idea into the mix and the country pauses out of fear and production stops.
Look at how the country has reacted to change under hussein, we have yet to start moving again and won't until the left is out of power.

Being conservative means caring for the country and it's future over ones personal struggle, it's called sacrifice, libs want others to sacrifice for their pet projects for the here and now, and tomorrow they'll change their minds.

Example, paper bags in stores worked just fine, then some idiot libs cried about cutting down trees, so they FORCED stores to change to plastic, all the while never understanding the grocery bag industry grew their own trees to make these bags.
Now, 20 years later, libs want to outlaw plastic bags for a myriad of reasons, but all emotional and stupid, when all they had to do in the first place was research where they came from, instead they did had an emotional reaction and disrupted the industry, costing the consumer in the end.

If a person really cares about the future of the country, then there is only one option and it isn't a liberal one.

Guys, I've been really busy lately, and thus have not have the time to post here, and may not for quite a while.

Please don't take this the wrong way.  Thank you.  (and Taxed, I am still working on the minimum wage issue; in no manner does my absence imply a concession)


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


I will point out, however, that this:

Quote
Being conservative means caring for the country and it's future over ones personal struggle, it's called sacrifice, libs want others to sacrifice for their pet projects for the here and now, and tomorrow they'll change their minds.

Produces overloading, unbearable levels of dramatic irony.  Why, exactly, would one who values "personal responsibility" and opposes taxes used to benefit any person other than the taxpayer himself argue collectivism?

caring for the country and its future over one's personal struggle, it's called sacrifice

OK then.  By this line of reasoning, explain why you oppose taxing the rich more.  It will generate more revenue; revenue that will be spent to benefit society as a whole, rather than simply the wealthy whose hands the money would otherwise reside in.  In this manner, the rich "care for the country" and "sacrifice" their own "personal struggle" for the good of America; are you implying that conservative ideology supports a graduated income tax?

Doubtlessly, you will rush to defend your opposition to the income tax with claims of "personal responsibility" and accusations of income tax as "wealth distribution" and "theft".  But these arguments will be precisely the opposite of what you just defined as the conservative position.

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

The conservative position, for better or for worse, is the notion that the strong have no obligation to help the disadvantaged and weak, because they have only a responsibility to themselves, and everyone must make their own way in life.  The philosophy inherently defends social darwinism and selfishness.  Defend it if you wish, but do not conjure silly strawmans against yourself.

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

And no, the counterargument that liberals do not wish to sacrifice their own dollars, but rather those of others, does not work because plenty of liberals such as myself would not qualify or directly benefit from programs such as social welfare, and would indeed be hindered by a graduated income tax.

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

Additionally, you make an interesting (and, yet again, horribly ironic) claim that liberals argue from emotion, not logic.  I do not have time to explain to you in full detail exactly how ridiculously this assertion is, but I'll simply point out, for now, that fiscal conservatism is coldly apathetic and ruthlessly pragmatic, whereas social conservatism bases its entire ideology on arbitrary premises and an irrational worship of ideals based on age and tradition rather than any hint of logical basis.

Later, I could go in depth in regards to the irreconcilable contradictions between fiscal and social conservatism; for example, arguing against welfare on the basis of "personal responsibility" yet supporting restrictions on prostitution, drugs and other activities considered self destructive yet otherwise by themselves victimless.

I whacked out the stuff I didn't address to save space - if I whacked anything that changes your context, I apologize, it was unintentional.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 23, 2012, 12:49:25 PM

Guys, I've been really busy lately, and thus have not have the time to post here, and may not for quite a while.

Please don't take this the wrong way.  Thank you.  (and Taxed, I am still working on the minimum wage issue; in no manner does my absence imply a concession)
------------------------------------------
I will point out, however, that this:
Produces overloading, unbearable levels of dramatic irony. Why, exactly, would one who values "personal responsibility" and opposes taxes used to benefit any person other than the taxpayer himself argue collectivism?

You equate coming together for the good of the country with collectivism. It's not - coming together for the good of the country is coming together for the good of us all, collectivism is coming together for the good of the individual.
In other words, the country should come together to build a road from one place to another, but the country shouldn't come together to drive you wherever you want to go on it (collectivism), or provide you a car or gasoline - the road is freely available to all, whether you have a car or not is up to you.

Conservatives know how to draw that line between the good of the unit and the good of the individual - liberals don't, for them the solution of one problem is just the beginning of the next problem and you wind up on the cliched 'slippery slope'.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 23, 2012, 12:49:25 PM
caring for the country and its future over one's personal struggle, it's called sacrifice

OK then.  By this line of reasoning, explain why you oppose taxing the rich more.  It will generate more revenue; revenue that will be spent to benefit society as a whole, rather than simply the wealthy whose hands the money would otherwise reside in.  In this manner, the rich "care for the country" and "sacrifice" their own "personal struggle" for the good of America; are you implying that conservative ideology supports a graduated income tax?

Isn't a progressive income tax inherently unfair? Aren't the people who pay less tax than me getting more representation for their tax dollar? I thought liberals were all about fairness.
It's just enforced obligation - see the next section.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 23, 2012, 12:49:25 PM

The conservative position, for better or for worse, is the notion that the strong have no obligation to help the disadvantaged and weak, because they have only a responsibility to themselves, and everyone must make their own way in life.  The philosophy inherently defends social darwinism and selfishness.  Defend it if you wish, but do not conjure silly strawmans against yourself.

Who said that? That's just more liberal tripe that they say enough until they believe it and is pretty much disproven time and time again - Solar's given several good examples of this - look at the hospitals, university buildings with people's names on them - people donate to have than done you know, and many are conservative. The Ford Foundation was very conservative when Henry was still kickin', done over to the lefties since then tho'.

What  conservatives object to is enforced obligation. Why should the government take my money and give it to someone I may not wish to give it to? Do you give money to every wino that wanders up to you on the street? I don't - BECAUSE THEY"RE WINOS! And the government will take a dollar out of my pocket and give about 70 cents it to any wino that walks into a shelter. Not only unfair, it's inefficient.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 23, 2012, 12:49:25 PM
Guys, I've been really busy lately, and thus have not have the time to post here, and may not for quite a while.

Please don't take this the wrong way.  Thank you.  (and Taxed, I am still working on the minimum wage issue; in no manner does my absence imply a concession)

I sort of gave up on you buddy.  I don't have the time to try and convince you that supply and demand works.

SciFi I have watched this discussion with interest, let me give you my thoughts;

Please don't take this the wrong way.  Thank you.  (and Taxed, I am still working on the minimum wage issue; in no manner does my absence imply a concession)

Let's hope this absence is in pursuit of a capitalist reason.

caring for the country and its future over one's personal struggle, it's called sacrifice

Only if you do so with your resources and not a collective approach. Sacrifice has to be individual not collective.

OK then.  By this line of reasoning, explain why you oppose taxing the rich more.  It will generate more revenue; revenue that will be spent to benefit society as a whole, rather than simply the wealthy whose hands the money would otherwise reside in.  In this manner, the rich "care for the country" and "sacrifice" their own "personal struggle" for the good of America; are you implying that conservative ideology supports a graduated income tax?

Again, this should be by choice not regulated in a hive mentality by liberals. And No Conservatism does not support a graduated tax structure. Everyone should be taxed at the same percentages. This way everyone participates in the contribution as well as the sacrifice.

The conservative position, for better or for worse, is the notion that the strong have no obligation to help the disadvantaged and weak, because they have only a responsibility to themselves, and everyone must make their own way in life.  The philosophy inherently defends social darwinism and selfishness.  Defend it if you wish, but do not conjure silly strawmans against yourself

This position is based wholly on emotional feelings. While man has a moral responsibility to help his fellow man, it should be by choice not fiat. Your position that the government has to step in is simply based on fairness (an emotional concept)

And no, the counterargument that liberals do not wish to sacrifice their own dollars, but rather those of others, does not work because plenty of liberals such as myself would not qualify or directly benefit from programs such as social welfare, and would indeed be hindered by a graduated income tax.

Have you donated 50% of your assests to helping the poor? If not do not tell me that not getting the benefits offered the poor or paying higher taxes is equivilant. This is a strawman arguement.

Additionally, you make an interesting (and, yet again, horribly ironic) claim that liberals argue from emotion, not logic.  I do not have time to explain to you in full detail exactly how ridiculously this assertion is, but I'll simply point out, for now, that fiscal conservatism is coldly apathetic and ruthlessly pragmatic, whereas social conservatism bases its entire ideology on arbitrary premises and an irrational worship of ideals based on age and tradition rather than any hint of logical basis.

This statement is so emotional based and filled with gobblygoop However, try this, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.

But your conclusion is as follows:
"If one does not share their wealth with the poor, they are cold and heartless" - this is not rational thinking, it is based on emotion.

Later, I could go in depth in regards to the irreconcilable contradictions between fiscal and social conservatism; for example, arguing against welfare on the basis of "personal responsibility" yet supporting restrictions on prostitution, drugs and other activities considered self destructive yet otherwise by themselves victimless.

Prostitution and Drugs are not victimless crimes! Please look at statistics on how these vices are developed, maintained and their resiual effect on society and people around them. Welfare is the same problem. It creates pockets of lower tier people gravitating to it, increased crime arises around theis segment of society and they become prey for thise who would feed off them.

You have based every premise in this arguement on your feeligs rather than rational facts.

Perhaps you should take and introspective break from TBL and do some actual reality based research. get out in the world and see what these type of philosophies have created.

Quote from: lessthantolerant on June 24, 2012, 04:17:38 AM

Perhaps you should take and introspective break from TBL and do some actual reality based research. get out in the world and see what these type of philosophies have created.

I agree with all that you wrote, but felt this statement worth repeating.
This is where "Show Me the Money" comes face to face with reality, libs generally never look at the end results of their programs, because its the thought that counts, which is always based on emotion.

Is it genetics that we are all born liberal, but at some point we actually start thinking, instead of reacting solely on emotion?

Quote from: Solar on June 24, 2012, 06:02:12 AM
I agree with all that you wrote, but felt this statement worth repeating.
This is where "Show Me the Money" comes face to face with reality, libs generally never look at the end results of their programs, because its the thought that counts, which is always based on emotion.

Is it genetics that we are all born liberal, but at some point we actually start thinking, instead of reacting solely on emotion?

I think it has little to do with genetics, and much more to do with education and wisdom, or more specifically the lack thereof.

We are born naturally and completely ignorant of all practical human matters, reliant on those around us for what we like to call "education" on the ultimate path to "wisdom," which is the hallmark of the attainment of true adulthood. Unfortunately, most of us are fed into the maw of the public (state-run) education system and thoroughly, purposely brainwashed and isolated from reality for anywhere from twelve to twenty years. We are little better off when we emerge, having received only the education/indoctrination the administrative state wants us to have.

Compounding and accelerating factors we deal with today include the Great Depression and World War II, events that radically altered our society and our attitudes toward the next generation. It is unfortunately much easier to simply remember what a shitty time you had as a kid in the Thirties or the unspeakable dread and human cost of World War II -- and go to ridiculous lengths to "shield" your children from such possibilities -- than it is to realize that such things are tempering and strengthening influences, and had precisely those effects on you and your generation.

And finally there's the effect of Big Government on a nation where half of taxpayers aren't, because the tax code is so whopper-jawed that they don't have to pay taxes at all, or may even qualify for what is convolutedly called a "refund." More than 47,000,000 Americans are literally fed at the government teat.

Speaking of "food stamps," which actually don't exist any more in this digital age, I'll tell of my one and only exposure to such things. Back in 1974, I had just married my high school sweetheart and we had rented a nice apartment in a nice building. I had a decent car -- no car payments -- and a decent union factory job making maybe $120/week take-home. A month after our wedding, my union brothers and sisters voted to strike the company I worked for. After a month of paycheckless Fridays, my new wife and I were hurting. I couldn't get unemployment compensation or any other sort of help, I was young and dumb and had no savings or reserve funds, and my family was not in a position to help either. We went to the food stamp office in the federal building in downtown Dayton, Ohio and applied for food stamps. It took literally all day, 90% of which was just sitting in hard chairs, waiting for some bureaucrat to call our names. Late in the afternoon, with our authorization paperwork in hand, we traveled to the barred window in the basement of the building where the food stamps were -- and we PAID $24 in cash for $96 worth of paper food stamps.

Needless to say, it ain't quite like that today. Back then, my wife and I were so embarrassed and shamed by the whole thing that we actually never spent all the stamps. The strike was settled shortly after we got 'em, and most of them went in the trash. With today's EBT cards, there is no such stigma -- which is precisely the goal of administrative government, the goal of lib/progs who believe in and foster and build the administrative state. Stigma-free Nanny State.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
I think it has little to do with genetics, and much more to do with education and wisdom, or more specifically the lack thereof.

We are born naturally and completely ignorant of all practical human matters, reliant on those around us for what we like to call "education" on the ultimate path to "wisdom," which is the hallmark of the attainment of true adulthood. Unfortunately, most of us are fed into the maw of the public (state-run) education system and thoroughly, purposely brainwashed and isolated from reality for anywhere from twelve to twenty years. We are little better off when we emerge, having received only the education/indoctrination the administrative state wants us to have.

Compounding and accelerating factors we deal with today include the Great Depression and World War II, events that radically altered our society and our attitudes toward the next generation. It is unfortunately much easier to simply remember what a shitty time you had as a kid in the Thirties or the unspeakable dread and human cost of World War II -- and go to ridiculous lengths to "shield" your children from such possibilities -- than it is to realize that such things are tempering and strengthening influences, and had precisely those effects on you and your generation.

And finally there's the effect of Big Government on a nation where half of taxpayers aren't, because the tax code is so whopper-jawed that they don't have to pay taxes at all, or may even qualify for what is convolutedly called a "refund." More than 47,000,000 Americans are literally fed at the government teat.

Speaking of "food stamps," which actually don't exist any more in this digital age, I'll tell of my one and only exposure to such things. Back in 1974, I had just married my high school sweetheart and we had rented a nice apartment in a nice building. I had a decent car -- no car payments -- and a decent union factory job making maybe $120/week take-home. A month after our wedding, my union brothers and sisters voted to strike the company I worked for. After a month of paycheckless Fridays, my new wife and I were hurting. I couldn't get unemployment compensation or any other sort of help, I was young and dumb and had no savings or reserve funds, and my family was not in a position to help either. We went to the food stamp office in the federal building in downtown Dayton, Ohio and applied for food stamps. It took literally all day, 90% of which was just sitting in hard chairs, waiting for some bureaucrat to call our names. Late in the afternoon, with our authorization paperwork in hand, we traveled to the barred window in the basement of the building where the food stamps were -- and we PAID $24 in cash for $96 worth of paper food stamps.

Needless to say, it ain't quite like that today. Back then, my wife and I were so embarrassed and shamed by the whole thing that we actually never spent all the stamps. The strike was settled shortly after we got 'em, and most of them went in the trash. With today's EBT cards, there is no such stigma -- which is precisely the goal of administrative government, the goal of lib/progs who believe in and foster and build the administrative state. Stigma-free Nanny State.

Though it was more of an insulting rhetorical question, I agree, we're all born pretty much a clean slate from which to grow.
But as you referenced, our education system is designed to create liberals, with absolutely no tools to learn critical thinking.

I was given a set of values while growing up, which brought me to a point where I started asking questions, questions a liberal would never think to ask, because they have been taught to think via emotion and never question the motive behind the people they elect to office.
These people are obviously smarter than your average human, with an in depth understanding of the world around them and would never steer them wrong.
So questioning their motives is out of the question, for doing so would create doubt in whether or not they had made the correct decision in putting them in office in the first place.

But today, we are witnessing a truly wondrous moment, libs actually questioning for the very first time, if they have been making bad decisions all their life.
This ground breaking consequence will be the changing moment, where we see the collapse of what is currently the Dim party.
I predict the party will do one of two things, either take a hard Right turn back to our side for it's sole survival, or, and this is the one I expect, will own the label of Dim Socialist party and continue to function in the annals for lack of power or voice.

Quote from: wtd on June 23, 2012, 02:06:54 PM
You equate coming together for the good of the country with collectivism. It's not - coming together for the good of the country is coming together for the good of us all, collectivism is coming together for the good of the individual.

Historically, it was considered chivalrous and noble for the strong to protect the weak and defenseless; with conservative logic, it's now considered an attack on freedom.  Apparently, the rich paying an entirely insignificant portion of their wealth to help the single mother of three living in a ghetto shack is just an abomination.

Quote
In other words, the country should come together to build a road from one place to another, but the country shouldn't come together to drive you wherever you want to go on it (collectivism), or provide you a car or gasoline - the road is freely available to all, whether you have a car or not is up to you.

Then apply this to health care.

We all pay taxes to build a highway that I may use more than you, who may use it more than a rich person who has no need to use it at all.  We're collectively paying taxes for a public service that some may use more than others.  You aren't paying a portion precisely or even roughly equal to the amount in which you will utilize said public service, and thus, some may disproportionately benefit from the service.  Yet nobody complains about paying taxes for public highways.

Quote
Conservatives know how to draw that line between the good of the unit and the good of the individual - liberals don't, for them the solution of one problem is just the beginning of the next problem and you wind up on the cliched 'slippery slope'.

Welfare does not benefit the "individual"; it benefits a very significant portion of society [and decrease poverty leads to decreased crime, which helps us all ].  Universal health care would benefit as many as 33 million uninsured Americans, as well as the 60% of all bankruptcy cases that stem from runaway healthcare bills.  This isn't all of us giving away our hard earned money for our Glorious Leader in his shiny palace; this is simply government controlled mass-charity.

You may argue that the entire nation is paying money for only a portion of society, yet then we go back to our public service analogy.  There are plenty of people who use public drinking fountains rarely, if ever; they still pay taxes.  Similarly, a 40 year old taxpayer with no children doesn't benefit from public education, but pays taxes for it nevertheless.  There are numerous precedents for the habit you hate, yet do and benefit from every day.

Quote
Isn't a progressive income tax inherently unfair? Aren't the people who pay less tax than me getting more representation for their tax dollar? I thought liberals were all about fairness.

It's completely fair.  A flat tax is unfair.  Do the raw numbers, and you'd think that it takes an equal cut from everyone; yet a person making $30,000 a year certainly suffers more from a 5% tax than one who makes ten million a month.  When you have more money, you can afford a proportionally larger cut from your salary; a billionaire who loses 90% of his wealth would be pissed yet still rich enough to live out the rest of his life comfortably; a working class citizen who loses 90% of his/her wealth is royally screwed.

Additionally, there is the law of diminishing returns; happiness increases significantly with an increase in wealth that elevates one beyond the poverty line, but less and less as one's wealth increases, until there is no difference at all.

Quote
Who said that? That's just more liberal tripe that they say enough until they believe it and is pretty much disproven time and time again - Solar's given several good examples of this - look at the hospitals, university buildings with people's names on them - people donate to have than done you know, and many are conservative. The Ford Foundation was very conservative when Henry was still kickin', done over to the lefties since then tho'.


What  conservatives object to is enforced obligation. Why should the government take my money and give it to someone I may not wish to give it to? Do you give money to every wino that wanders up to you on the street? I don't - BECAUSE THEY"RE WINOS! And the government will take a dollar out of my pocket and give about 70 cents it to any wino that walks into a shelter. Not only unfair, it's inefficient.

Now hold on a second.  Do you care about fairness, or do you not?  If so, why do you not support government funded tuitions ('cause a graduated high schooler's wealth is completely out of his/her hands) and taxing large inheritance bequeaths?

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

Secondly, you're presuming that every poor person is a "wino", and every rich person was an honest, self-made man.  Life doesn't work this way.









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

Quote from: lessthantolerant on June 24, 2012, 04:17:38 AM
Only if you do so with your resources and not a collective approach. Sacrifice has to be individual not collective.

That's what we're talking about here; you paying taxes to benefit the less fortunate, through your own resources.  That everybody's individual contribution becomes collective is an inevitable occurrence.

Quote
Again, this should be by choice not regulated in a hive mentality by liberals. And No Conservatism does not support a graduated tax structure. Everyone should be taxed at the same percentages. This way everyone participates in the contribution as well as the sacrifice.

We'll get to the hypocrisy here later; for now, I'll repeat that a flat tax isn't as fair as one would presume in theory.  A working class citizen will suffer tremendously more from a flat tax than a rich citizen.  An extrapolation from this would be that said rich citizen can afford to pay significantly more in taxes while suffering the same, or still less relative setback.

Quote
This position is based wholly on emotional feelings. While man has a moral responsibility to help his fellow man, it should be by choice not fiat. Your position that the government has to step in is simply based on fairness (an emotional concept)

And your opposition to a graduated income tax is based wholly on fairness.  Those poor billionaires, paying 3% more taxes!  Who's helping them?


Mind you, using ethical premises is hardly the same as letting your reasoning be emotionally driven.  We all agree (hopefully) that "suffering = bad" and "happiness = good", and "fairness = good", so if my logic from there on is valid, there's no issue with wanting a fair society.

Quote
This statement is so emotional based and filled with gobblygoop However, try this, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.

Firstly, as a hint of irony, I would point out that the primary founders of the modern school of logic, such as Aristotle and Plato, were liberal intellectuals whose guts you would have hated with a passion.

Secondly, disagree with me on either of these two premises I find social conservatism to be based on:

Religion
Tradition


Both of these are inherently illogical and emotionally derived.  Religion; faith, is inherently the belief in something through the willful suspension of critical thinking, and tradition is the belief in something on the basis of age rather than merit.  Both are bald faced fallacies.

So every time I hear Romney sprout "we need to maintain our traditional values!", I just feel like punching him in the face.

Quote
But your conclusion is as follows:
"If one does not share their wealth with the poor, they are cold and heartless" - this is not rational thinking, it is based on emotion.

Do you disagree with the statement?

Do you have an argument against abortion that isn't emotionally based?  Let's see how long it takes you to figure out what I'm getting at here.

Quote
Prostitution and Drugs are not victimless crimes!

Neither is poverty, which leads to crime, prostitution, drugs and teenage pregnancies.

Quote
Please look at statistics on how these vices are developed, maintained and their resiual effect on society and people around them. Welfare is the same problem. It creates pockets of lower tier people gravitating to it, increased crime arises around theis segment of society and they become prey for thise who would feed off them.

The statistics quite indisputably demonstrate that nations' poverty rates significantly decrease after the implementation of welfare.

Similarly, I find your implication that poverty prior to welfare was lower rather interesting.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:14:01 AM
Historically, it was considered chivalrous and noble for the strong to protect the weak and defenseless; with conservative logic, it's now considered an attack on freedom.  Apparently, the rich paying an entirely insignificant portion of their wealth to help the single mother of three living in a ghetto shack is just an abomination.


Then apply this to health care.

We all pay taxes to build a highway that I may use more than you, who may use it more than a rich person who has no need to use it at all.  We're collectively paying taxes for a public service that some may use more than others.  You aren't paying a portion precisely or even roughly equal to the amount in which you will utilize said public service, and thus, some may disproportionately benefit from the service.  Yet nobody complains about paying taxes for public highways.

Welfare does not benefit the "individual"; it benefits a very significant portion of society [and decrease poverty leads to decreased crime, which helps us all ].  Universal health care would benefit as many as 33 million uninsured Americans, as well as the 60% of all bankruptcy cases that stem from runaway healthcare bills.  This isn't all of us giving away our hard earned money for our Glorious Leader in his shiny palace; this is simply government controlled mass-charity.

Honestly, I simply can't read anymore of your innocuous drivel, your rhetoric is as if like it was taken word for word from the DNC talking point memos, or you're channeling Pelosi herself.
Answer me honestly, do you believe half the shit you write, are you honestly that ignorant?

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 08:08:30 AM
Honestly, I simply can't read anymore of your innocuous drivel, your rhetoric is as if like it was taken word for word from the DNC talking point memos, or you're channeling Pelosi herself.
Answer me honestly, do you believe half the shit you write, are you honestly that ignorant?

Pot, kettle, black.  My post was intentionally minimal on rhetoric; your response is nothing other than rhetoric.  You clearly don't understand what "rhetoric" means.

At the most, you can accuse me of using bad logic (and then actually proving this), but not rhetoric.  Now, when will you learn that simply dismissing an argument as "innocuous drivel" isn't a substantive response?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 08:20:29 AM
Pot, kettle, black.  My post was intentionally minimal on rhetoric; your response is nothing other than rhetoric.  You clearly don't understand what "rhetoric" means.

At the most, you can accuse me of using bad logic (and then actually proving this), but not rhetoric.  Now, when will you learn that simply dismissing an argument as "innocuous drivel" isn't a substantive response?

Wrong, you believe the BS you post, but the source from which it came is pure rhetoric and lies.

In case you don't know:
Rhetoric: Loud and confused and empty talk.
I swear, young man, learn critical thinking, ask questions, quit taking this shit at face value, I'm not saying it's the opposite of everything you've written, but there is a solid middle, but you're posting the extreme of the extreme.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 08:27:19 AM
Wrong, you believe the BS you post, but the source from which it came

What source?

Quoteis pure rhetoric and lies.

Prove it.

Quote
In case you don't know:
Rhetoric: Loud and confused and empty talk.

Prove my post consists of this.

Quote
I swear, young man, learn critical thinking,

Prove that my post lacks critical thinking.

Quoteask questions,

[rhetoric]

Quotequit taking this shit at face value, I'm not saying it's the opposite of everything you've written, but there is a solid middle, but you're posting the extreme of the extreme.

Prove it.

You see, I find a complete lack of actual addressing my argument here, and the classic "hehehe, your post is just too stupid for me to respond to" evasion trick that's older than dirt.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 08:33:40 AM
What source?

Prove it.

Prove my post consists of this.

Prove that my post lacks critical thinking.

[rhetoric]

Prove it.

You see, I find a complete lack of actual addressing my argument here, and the classic "hehehe, your post is just too stupid for me to respond to" evasion trick that's older than dirt.

Wherever you get your half brained ideas, that source.
But lets take your first piece of nonsense, which I why I read no further.

Quote
Historically, it was considered chivalrous and noble for the strong to protect the weak and defenseless; with conservative logic, it's now considered an attack on freedom.  Apparently, the rich paying an entirely insignificant portion of their wealth to help the single mother of three living in a ghetto shack is just an abomination.

Lets take this one piece of rhetoric, yes, rhetoric, or do you really believe this pap?
"with conservative logic, it's now considered an attack on freedom"
How did you come to that conclusion?

And show me where the rich, and I don't mean ultra rich, pay an unfair amount in taxes?
Like the rest of us, they too pay the same percentage in taxes, just because they have more money, doesn't mean they should be taxed at an increased level, this is class warfare, a Marxist ideal.

Like Maggie said, socialism works just fine, till you run out of other peoples money.
For socialism to succeed, it needs Capitalists to leach from, suck too much from your host, and you kill it.
Raising the tax burden of the rich will simply make them middle class.
Take an econ class, you really need to understand our system.
Is it fair? Hell no, but show me any other country in the history of the world that was more successful.
Keep in mind, even the poor in this country live like Kings compared to other countries.