Iceweasel
Diamond Member
Finally we are getting down to calling each other sweetheart and cupcake.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?
dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.
A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.
Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.
Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.
[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?
dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.
A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.
Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.
Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.
Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.
Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.
Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.
Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.
"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].
To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest. It is a theme presented everyday on this message board.
I don't advocate an authoritarian government; I'd never consider an invasive medical procedure, medically unnecessary, for a pregnant women who sought and abortion legally authorized by the Supreme Court. Nor do I want a laissez faire government approach to industry whose work product produces pollution of our air,
water or soil.
Sometimes a government needs to exercise its authority and other times to take a hands off approach. Using Art. I, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment to circumvent long established and necessary governance is insane; some believe allowing a problem to fester when a medial treatment will remedy the situation is insane - and some of those are the ideologues who always hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment..
To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest.
capitalism engenders capital morals for a price while socialism engenders social morals for free.
[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?
dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.
A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.
Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.
Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.
Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.
Finally we are getting down to calling each other sweetheart and cupcake.
too 100% stupid of course!! Using govt to violently raise your wage while other non-union workers who earn less have to pay for it with higher prices is evil and liberal. Unions just shipped 40 million American jobs off-shore. Unions should be made illegal again to bring those 40 million jobs back and dramatically raise American wages.dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.
A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.
Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.
Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.
Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.
Had you the ability to provide a reasoned approach, my response would have been different. Your post, accusing me of a logical fallacy, was in fact a Straw Man. You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot". That you cannot understand your error is telling; I suggest you google logical fallacies and study them, before you try to use them.
You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot".
You said:Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.
"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].
hyperbolical.Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.
Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.
"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].
To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest. It is a theme presented everyday on this message board.
I don't advocate an authoritarian government; I'd never consider an invasive medical procedure, medically unnecessary, for a pregnant women who sought and abortion legally authorized by the Supreme Court. Nor do I want a laissez faire government approach to industry whose work product produces pollution of our air,
water or soil.
Sometimes a government needs to exercise its authority and other times to take a hands off approach. Using Art. I, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment to circumvent long established and necessary governance is insane; some believe allowing a problem to fester when a medial treatment will remedy the situation is insane - and some of those are the ideologues who always hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment..
The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!
You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot".
Actually, if you had been paying attention you'd see that I did refute your post, and called you a fucking idiot after.
Right back at ya buddy. The rebuttals to Skylar's (in particular) detailed and well thought out posts have been pathetic. That of course includes yours.RETARD ALERT!
You, Sylar and several others have posted some valid I nformation that debunks what Kosh and his ilk have bought into and stops short of calling him stupid. Still, the flow of misinformation continues.
they are really not private when so heavily regulated by state insurance commissioners,ACA, and when it is illegal for them compete across state lines.a public utility is more socialistic than the PPACA, which still involve privage insurance companies.
But guess who is paying the "income taxes" - not the rich , the middle class is. Because Americans have been conditioned to confuse patriotism with stupidity..
Since the top 1% earn 20% of income and pay 40% of income taxes and the top 5% pay 60% and the top 20% pay 94% of all income taxes, that would seem to be unsupported by the facts.
Really? That's a fact?
Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations
.
Those are IRS statistics. We have higher rates and more tax shelters, showing an example of a tax shelter doesn't refute what I said. But overall, it's income verus taxes, and I gave you the end result.
I didn't change any standards. Marriage affords couples numerous rights and protections, many of them LEGAL. You are calling for anarchy...
Who gets the house? The one with the gun.
Yes, you said government marriage being restricted from gays was discriminatory and you're against discrimination. That was your standard then. I pointed out all government marriage is discriminatory and I am against all government marriage. You are for discrimination that people who get married have benefits not shared by other people. I want everyone to be treated the same by government.
You came back with you love the perks other people don't get, baby. Not only a different standard from your first one, but contradictory to that you are against discrimination.
You keep saying you are not an anarchist, as you continue to describe your utopia...anarchy.
No, I never say I'm an anarchist. Here you go, Kiddie Poo.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Anarchists believe in NO government. It's not that hard. Well, except to liberals. But you're the ones who think not paying for things like birth control is denying people birth control...
Your problem is you are too stupid to know what anarchy really means, and what it looks like...