How stupid are left wingers? This stupid.

[AntonToo]

Obesity hasn't put a strain on America? Our life expectancy is dropping because of obesity.

"our' life expectancy is doing nothing. Those that live unhealthy lives have their life expectancy lowered. If you do not do so then there is no effect on you.

It is none of your business what others do and the effects that they have to go through because of it. Whatever happened to having the right to control your own body - to include what you put in the damn thing.

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That is actually the entire purpose of insurance companies – to assess risk and charge appropriately. The government didn’t assess squat with the tax other than they want more money. Again, an individual’s personal decisions are not yours to make demands of. Once again you are proving that the right to your own body is nothing more than a slogan that the left does not believe in.

Are you disputing that soda consumption contributes to increased healthcare spending?

You statement about there being no public interest about personal decisions is straight CRAZY statement, considering all the laws, incentives and yes taxes on the books. You are just shooting from your ideological hip, but there is no connection to reality, it's simply not how the world works, sorry. You personal decisions are steered from the moment you are born by tv shows, advertisement, mortgage deductions, seat belts regulations, child credits, nutritional labels.

Proposition that paying a bit more for soda takes away from ownership of your body is NONSENSE. Especially so considering all the laws that prohibit, not small tax, what you can do with it.

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

 

[leftwinger]

What else you want to ban? Add Tax? Margarine? Butter? Fruit juices with lots of sugar?

Where do you draw the line? We gots' to eat! You ain't growing corn in NYC.
Costs a lot of money to stock a store with fresh vegetables no one will buy and kids won't eat.

It ain't easy. I don't have all the answers.
I have been wrong several times today already.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

"our' life expectancy is doing nothing. Those that live unhealthy lives have their life expectancy lowered. If you do not do so then there is no effect on you.

It is none of your business what others do and the effects that they have to go through because of it. Whatever happened to having the right to control your own body - to include what you put in the damn thing.

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

You didn't do a very good job.

 

[AntonToo]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist "freedom" never was and never will be.

Heroin addicts are not what I would consider free, even in a vacuum of total anarchy.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What else you want to ban? Add Tax? Margarine? Butter? Fruit juices with lots of sugar?

Where do you draw the line? We gots' to eat! You ain't growing corn in NYC.
Costs a lot of money to stock a store with fresh vegetables no one will buy and kids won't eat.

It ain't easy. I don't have all the answers.
I have been wrong several times today already.

There's no limit to what liberals would ban. From speech to eating something and to your healthcare options. They think they know best.

 

[AntonToo]

Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.

Out of control sugar consumption levels by Americans have a cost to everyone here, it increases our healthcare costs and that cost is in your insurance premiums and your taxes. You just don't see it separately.

Want to do it? No problem, pay a bit more to help offset soda's externalized costs.

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

You didn't do a very good job.

That is not relevant to the point of what is ad hominem.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

“Maybe that is true for carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head, but that is not how the world works.”


Yes it actually is and your inability to say anything without an ad homonym shows the true weakness inherent in your argument.

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

You didn't do a very good job.

That is not relevant to the point of what is ad hominem.

The funny thing is you are arguing over semantics when I'm responding to how stupid you are. And you don't get it.

 

[AntonToo]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

No, what I have is a ounce of PERSPECTIVE.

Take your freedom chants over soda tax and save them for something real.

 

[AntonToo]

Ad hominem?

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

You didn't do a very good job.

That is not relevant to the point of what is ad hominem.

The funny thing is you are arguing over semantics when I'm responding to how stupid you are. And you don't get it.

I just explained to you why your response to me is nonsense. That doesn't show me to be stupid, it shows your stupid argument.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

No, what I have is a ounce of PERSPECTIVE.

Take your freedom chants over soda tax and save them for something real.

When you're down to taxing soda **** you. The real is you morons are out of control.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yes - that is what this is:

carefully compartmentalized ideological utopia in your head

^an attack on character rather than argument. You declare it is a false utopia and then restate your assertion without any logic to bother backing it up.

I never attacked his character, I attacked his ideological bullshit and I absolutely attacked his argument, so stfu.

You didn't do a very good job.

That is not relevant to the point of what is ad hominem.

The funny thing is you are arguing over semantics when I'm responding to how stupid you are. And you don't get it.

I just explained to you why your response to me is nonsense. That doesn't show me to be stupid, it shows your stupid argument.

Still don't get it. Good luck in the future.

 

[TomParks]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

No, what I have is a ounce of PERSPECTIVE.

Take your freedom chants over soda tax and save them for something real.

When you're down to taxing soda **** you. The real is you morons are out of control.

You are 100% correct....yesterday tobacco tax, today soda tax, tomorrow ????

 

[AntonToo]

And this is something you support. A long list of things the government needs to control. Not much freedom there.

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

No, what I have is a ounce of PERSPECTIVE.

Take your freedom chants over soda tax and save them for something real.

When you're down to taxing soda **** you. The real is you morons are out of control.

You are 100% correct....yesterday tobacco tax, today soda tax, tomorrow ????

More taxes on unhealthy shit as means to raise revenues instead of more standard tax hikes. So insane!!!

 

[FA_Q2]

That is actually the entire purpose of insurance companies – to assess risk and charge appropriately. The government didn’t assess squat with the tax other than they want more money. Again, an individual’s personal decisions are not yours to make demands of. Once again you are proving that the right to your own body is nothing more than a slogan that the left does not believe in.

Are you disputing that soda consumption contributes to increased healthcare spending?

No, I am disputing that my healthcare costs are not under the preview of your demands. I pay for them. This assertion that anything that may or may not increase costs somewhere throughout society means that the government has full powers over that action negates the very concept of freedom.

You statement about there being no public interest about personal decisions is straight CRAZY statement, considering all the laws, incentives and yes taxes on the books. You are just shooting from your ideological hip, but there is no connection to reality, it's simply not how the world works, sorry. You personal decisions are steered from the moment you are born by tv shows, advertisement, mortgage deductions, seat belts regulations, child credits, nutritional labels.

They are steered. They SHOULD NOT BE. At least not by government edict.

Just because the government has decided that it can and should dictate to people what they should and should not do does not mean that I have to support such asinine governmental powers.

Proposition that paying a bit more for soda takes away from ownership of your body is NONSENSE. Especially so considering all the laws that prohibit, not small tax, what you can do with it.

No, it is not nonsense at all. I guess you think that a tax levied on abortions would not be an infringement on those rights then? Of course it would and should be met with just as much disdain as these asinine 'sin' taxes that are levied all the time in an effort to bilk money from the poor.

In the end, this has literally nothing to do with health anyway - soda is not some monolithic problem that needs to be solved. There are still Big Macs and Quarter Pounders out there clogging people's arteries daily. Lifestyle problems are not solved by issuing taxes on specific products.

 

[AntonToo]

That is actually the entire purpose of insurance companies – to assess risk and charge appropriately. The government didn’t assess squat with the tax other than they want more money. Again, an individual’s personal decisions are not yours to make demands of. Once again you are proving that the right to your own body is nothing more than a slogan that the left does not believe in.

Are you disputing that soda consumption contributes to increased healthcare spending?

No

Good.

 

[Andylusion]

You asked this honestly, so I'm going to answer, and I am not trying to insult you or anyone, even though the answer may be insulting. I don't mean it to be, it's just the answer to the question.

Two things are stupid about this.

First, every single time that a left-winger puts in place a tax, or a regulation, that drives up cost on the company, or business or whatever....

Every single time, they always believe in this mythology that somehow magically these costs are going to paid for by the rich, or by the mega-corporation.

That is NEVER the case. Never meaning... NOT ONE TIME IN ALL HISTORY... is that the case.

Companies do not have money on magic trees in the backyard to pay for stuff. Every single penny that goes to pay for a tax, or a regulation of some sort... comes from only one of two places. Either A: from Consumers in the form of higher prices, or B: from Employees in the form of lower wages or fewer jobs.

Those are the only two sources for money to pay for taxes and regulations. Consumers, or Employees. That's it.

And while you say this is one guy... I've heard this exact argument hundreds of times even on this forum, that they expected the company to just pay the tax, and cut all the executives pay, and no employees should lose their jobs, and consumers should pay a higher price.

Instead people are just driving out of the area to buy soda, and employees in the area affected by the tax, are losing their jobs. Completely, and entirely expected, by all of us on the right-wing that understand basic economics.

The second stupid aspect is the knee-jerk responses of "greedy", to every single basic economic principal that comes to fruition.

Every time that a left-wing policy destroys the economy, and causes consumers to pay higher prices, and causes employees to lose their jobs.... the morons immediately jump to "greedy".

Yet if they themselves were the ones expected to earn a median wage as CEO of a major corporation, in order to pay ridiculous taxes... they would do the same thing.

Only in left-wing world, are people expected to work hard to lose money, for the benefit of government taxes, and societal jobs. You are basically expected to commit suicide for the "common good" or some such nonsense.

The entire concept is bonkers.

And even if you fired all the executives at all the soda companies, whoever you replaced them with, would all do the exact same thing.

The only way you can run a non-profitable business venture and still keep people employed, without going bankrupt, is to nationalize it. And we've seen how well nationalizing everything works. The Soviet Union almost starved to death. Prisons were being filled up with people who committed cannibalism.

This is why this right here is so stupid. Everything he's saying is a complaint against basic Economics 101.

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

 

[Andylusion]

Conservatives tend to have a very naive understanding of "freedom". That's why such absolutist freedom never was and never will be.

You have a bit of a problem with freedom I see. A tad more on the government force side of things.

No, what I have is a ounce of PERSPECTIVE.

Take your freedom chants over soda tax and save them for something real.

When you're down to taxing soda **** you. The real is you morons are out of control.

You are 100% correct....yesterday tobacco tax, today soda tax, tomorrow ????

More taxes on unhealthy shit as means to raise revenues instead of more standard tax hikes. So insane!!!

You already have a massive illegal black market cigarette market in New York. And the tax revenue isn't nearly as much as they claimed it would be.

Moreover, if you missed it.... the whole reason Eric Garner end up getting killed, is because he was selling those illegal cigarettes without collecting taxes on it, and then he tried to resist arrest.

Do you want more people being arrested over your cigarette tax? If so, shut up about it. If not, you need to rethink your tax-everything-and-b!tch-when-people-buy-stuff-illegally plan.

Your system isn't working.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.