Poodle, pointing out a fact isn't an insult. Deal with it. Come on, out with it, how old are you and how long have you actually been in the workforce.
I take it you are schizophrenic? The other night you practically crying like a little girl about insults. Today you are "big tough guy" with your "deal with it" rhetoric. And since all I did was point out the
fact that you are indeed stupid (and even you know that much), then we both agree that I was not insulting you.
Not that I thought you were going to answer the question, but how was asking a simple question- not screaming that someone is a communist or stupid- but a simple question of how old are you and how much have you paid in taxes over a lifetime- insulting you, exactly.
The fact you are unwilling to give a straight up answer speaks volumes.
The fact that you are so concerned about my age speaks volume. The reality is, even when we post indisputable facts - quacks like you, RDean, and RW cry "right-wing propaganda". So what good will posting my age do when you'll just claim it's not true anyway?
(Hint: I'm
much older than you think I am)
Guy, Bush made two presenations to the American people.
1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he didn't.)
2) Saddam was working with Bin Laden (he wasn't.)
As such, going to war with him was NOT defense as you've defined it.
From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo
It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.
So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?
The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda). The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.
Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News
NewsMax Archives
Oops!
We set up a puppet government and the big oil companies were doing business in Iraq again. Um, yeah, they benefitted. So did the Zionists, who wanted Saddam gone and he was gone.
Tin foil hat boy strikes again! Did our "shadow government" set up their "puppet government"?
By the way - what is this "we" shit? You're a coward who sits at home bitching about the U.S. and crying about defense. Like everything else in life, you're not willing to stand up and put your ass on the line.
What we didn't get was the WMD's Bush insisted were there.
See above! Can you imagine if just
once you were educated on a particular topic before opening your mouth about it?
Again, the constitution doesn't prohibit a universal health care.
You're right.....at the
state level. Unfortunately for you, Obamacare was implemented at the federal level. And the Constitution explicitly "prohibits" (your word) any action by the federal government outside of the 18 enumerated powers.
Oops!
Please explain how the "General" are losing health insurance because of ObamaCare. Because, guy, it ain't happening. Oh, a few companies are dropping health care, but they were doing that before Obamacare came along.
You just answered your own question (surprised you were 50% honest there, even though you lied about the "few" part).
Well, good thing for that old bag Ayn she did, because at the end of her miserable, selfish life, after her husband dumped her and most of her fans forgot her, she had to rely on Medicare and Social Security to live.
And just when I thought you couldn't possibly expose your ignorance any further, you go and embarrass yourself by swallowing a load of one of the most egregious liberal lies ever. You really are the good slave of your liberal masters, aren't you?
- First of all, Ayn was collecting royalties on her books (having made hundreds of thousands of dollars) right to the very end. She was quite comfortable.
- Second, Ayn was on the record as stating that people should draw from any government program from which they were forced to pay into as a way of recovering what was wrongfully taken from them.
- Third and finally, Ayn Rand actually fought against her own attorney to stop from receiving any form of Social Security or Medicare (even though collecting would have been very much in line with her beliefs).
Classically Liberal: Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security
Oops!
Guy, you need to get over your Constitutional Fetishism.
Yeah - we need to get over that pesky little highest
law in the land which is preventing your dream to an unimpeded march to communism.
The constitution means what people think it ought to mean.
Well by that logic, we can imprison you for life and torture you, because I most definitely believe that doing just that to communists is what the Constitution "ought to mean".
Of all of your absurd statements, this is by far the most asinine. Since everyone would have their own opinion on what it "ought to mean", who gets to decide? Let me guess, you? And before you say "the Supreme Court" - remember that you just declared "what people think it ought to mean", which means we would get to decide that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on it
If it were intended to be whatever each person thought it "ought" to be then it wouldn't have been written down and signed into law dumb ass. It would have simply been shared verbally and left to each person from there
This really does get to the heart of the argument. Is health care a consumer good or a public service. Most sensible, sane people think it should be a public service.
First, no they don't. Most sensible, sane people understand that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and not "what people think it ought to mean"
Second, it doesn't matter what people think. It matters what the law says. For instance, assholes like RDean
thought that George Zimmerman should go to prison. But the
law said he was justified to use lethal force in self-defense.
And then there are people who think that selfishness is a virtue. Like you and Ayn.
No, we think personal responsibility and abiding by the highest law in the land is a virtue. Meanwhile, people like you think being a parasite on society is something you are entitled too.
Why would I want to do that, when we can fix this county and expunge you hateful little selfish ***** and make you pay for our healthcare? Frankly, you make my argument for higher taxes for me.
Why would you do that? Because you're so enthralled with other nations and you hate this one. Or maybe you just realize that without hard working conservatives, liberal parasites like you have no one to mooch off of...
Guy, as I've said, I've probably paid more taxes lifetime than you ever will.
What does paying taxes have to do with your refusal to stand up and pay for children who are dying because they don't have healthcare coverage? You're a greedy, selfish ass-wipe who lets children die and then tries to convince himself that he "cares" because you are
forced to pay taxes. Your tax dollars are not voluntary - so you've committed no great benevolent act.
I do enjoy exposing your bullshit and then watching you desperately try to change the subject and/or spin reality (ie "I am forced to pay taxes so I care").
But to the point, I would bet that if you let people pick where their tax money goes, paying for medical treatment for the poor would get funded long before Wars for Oil and Welfare for Zionists, your favorite programs.
So then why don't you simply solve that pesky little Constitutional problem by amending the Constitution to make healthcare the responsibility of the federal government (you know, since sooo many people support your socialism over defense)? Oh wait, that's right, because you can't get the votes for it
Which just proves that you are
full of
shit and lying through your teeth as usual
