You ever call me a liberal, even by implication, again, I'll come over there and smack you until your eyes switch sockets. I don't have to listen to that kind of nasty talk.
Heh.. touched a nerve, eh? Fwiw, I didn't 'call' you a liberal. I said you're using the same line Democrats use to defend overreaching government - which you are.
"Heh". Being offensive and insulting isn't "touching a nerve". It's just being offensive and insulting. If I tell you that you're an immature, zit-faced, needle-dicked dweeb who's going to live with his mother his whole life and never know the touch of a woman, does the fact that you find what I said offensive mean that you ARE an immature, zit-faced, needle-dicked dweeb etc.?
Don't confuse being disgustingly rude with being insightful and perceptive. Any halfwit rebellious teenager at the dinner table can manage exactly the same.
Meanwhile, jackwagon, if you're feeling so ballsy and manly, you come over HERE and tell me that I'm a liberal and your reinterpretation bullshit is the "real conservatism". If the most intelligent thing you can come up with is to tell the most conservative members of the board how liberal they are, then you're every bit as bright as you are macho . . . and believe me, that's not a compliment to EITHER quality.
By the way, Mr. Brave-Behind-My-Keyboard Constitutional Conservative, I'm still waiting for that specific citation of the Constitution supporting your assertion. And this IS the last time I'm asking. One more "I"m right because you're offended that I said you were liberal" non-response, and I'll just take it to mean you're too chickenshit to admit you were wrong, accept your surrender, and move on from the defeated foe. So man up, grow a pair, and answer the ******* question, already. Talk about your liberal tactics . . .
Yeah, I wanna bet. Comparing a program in which participation is voluntary and strictly limited to a specific segment of society that meets set criteria, and a program (however speculative) that is mandatory for ALL members of society, no matter what, is comparing apples and oranges.
Meanwhile, any arguments regarding, "Why the **** am I paying for this guy's cancer treatments?" or whatever from conservatives are undoubtedly going to continue to be based on the premise that socialized medicine has no business existing in the US at all, not on trying to "tweak" it into shape.
The bet isn't over the comparison. The bet is whether the state will attempt to do the same kind of arm twisting when taxpayers are paying for health care. It will be the same dynamic. The Dems will push us into dependency on the state, and the Rethugs will happily use that dependency to bully people around. You'all make a good tag team.
And dipshits like you sit around, running your gums and congratulating yourselves on how much smarter you are because you can criticize and talk about how both sides suck . . . and accomplish ****-all of your own.
Thanks, though, for taking the time to point out VERY CAREFULLY how your meaningless bet wasn't about something I never said it was about, anyway. Because that was TERRIBLY useful and advancing to the discussion.
It's a toss-up sometimes which is worse: ignorant, gullible liberals slavishly worshipping their leaders, or conceited, preening independents slavishly worshipping their own cleverness, evidenced by nothing more than their blind refusal to ever take a side or a stand on anything.
