PDA

View Full Version : Remove All Traces of Evil Socialism from the United States of America



Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:14 AM
Where should we start?

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

VA Benefits.




I AM A TEA PARTY MEMBER. A REAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SOCIALISM. IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE SOCIALISM WE SHOULD FIGHT TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS OF OUR LIVES.

marv
03-21-2010, 11:28 AM
Geeeeeze Wee Wee, you are even more stupid than I ever thought!

Socialism is about taking from those who have earned, and giving to those who haven't.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Geeeeeze Wee Wee, you are even more stupid than I ever thought!

Socialism is about taking from those who have earned, and giving to those who haven't.

Exactly. All of those are services of the Government payed for with Taxes. We should dismantle all of these programs. Real Conservatives and Tea Partiers should stand true to their convinctions, stay internally consistent, and stand up for what's RIGHT.

Speedy
03-21-2010, 11:33 AM
Jeez Wi! Are you always this stupid or just on a roll today. Even the Constitution outlined services that the Government was to provide and outside of that, it is not Socialism, it is larceny and theft.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:34 AM
Time to get rid of this idiot. He continues to lump our serviceman who put their lives on the line with his liberal welfare slime. he doesn't know the difference between necessary government and worthless bureaucracy. many people here have spent lots of time with page after page of information that he just disregards and then asks the question again. Get out the ban hammer!

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:36 AM
Time to get rid of this idiot. He continues to lump our serviceman who put their lives on the line with his liberal welfare slime. he doesn't know the difference between necessary government and worthless bureaucracy. many people here have spent lots of time with page after page of information that he just disregards and then asks the question again. Get out the ban hammer!

Oh wait, we're drawing distinctions now between things which are useful public services and those that are not?

No no no. That's too much. Socialism is the evil, socialism is the threat, socialism is the problem. If you start suggesting that a little Socialism is good, then what stops someone from suggesting that Universal Health Care for all US Citizens is good?

No no no. Socialism = Anti-America

We MUST Fight socialism.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Oh wait, we're drawing distinctions now between things which are useful public services and those that are not?

No no no. That's too much. Socialism is the evil, socialism is the threat, socialism is the problem. If you start suggesting that a little Socialism is good, then what stops someone from suggesting that Universal Health Care for all US Citizens is good?

No no no. Socialism = Anti-America

We MUST Fight socialism.

http://auntiefashion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cherry-pie.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:46 AM
http://img2.pict.com/f2/4b/e0/3178725/0/medicare.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 11:53 AM
Jeez Wi! Are you always this stupid or just on a roll today. Even the Constitution outlined services that the Government was to provide and outside of that, it is not Socialism, it is larceny and theft.

Show me exactly WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it explicitly state that the BIG GOVERNMENT can regulate (MORE LIKE TAKEOVER AND RAPE) Air Travel or Drug Regulations or Internet Communications??

I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT.

CHECK. MATE.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 11:56 AM
Show me exactly WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it explicitly state that the BIG GOVERNMENT can regulate (MORE LIKE TAKEOVER AND RAPE) Air Travel or Drug Regulations or Internet Communications??

I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT.

CHECK. MATE.

http://www.bigboy.com/RestaurantImages/Pie-Straw.jpg

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:17 PM
You're making a false argument and you know it. The argument is not about paying "no" taxes what so ever. By the way, why is the postal service on your list? It operates on its own revenues.

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 12:18 PM
Oh wait, we're drawing distinctions now between things which are useful public services and those that are not?

No no no. That's too much. Socialism is the evil, socialism is the threat, socialism is the problem. If you start suggesting that a little Socialism is good, then what stops someone from suggesting that Universal Health Care for all US Citizens is good?

No no no. Socialism = Anti-America

We MUST Fight socialism.

STOOOOOOOOOOOPID

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:19 PM
The ingrediants of that PIE were first regulated ("may I see your papers, strawberries?") by the Federal (Socialist) Government and their SS-like Stalinist service: The FDA

Do NOT enjoy that pie, call your congressmen, tell them to DESTROY THE FDA.

We are Americans, we are Tea Partiers, we are CONSERVATIVES.

No Socialism, protect Freedom, Remove Food Regulations that stop hard-working business men from putting whatever they like (FREEDOM) into their pie.

If it kills me, I don't have to buy it, it's called the FREE MARKET.

Maybe I should mail you a pocket-sized copy of the constitution to remind you of WHO WE ARE.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:19 PM
You're making a false argument and you know it. The argument is not about paying "no" taxes what so ever. By the way, why is the postal service on your list? It operates on its own revenues.

It's a non-profit (aka: socialist) GOVERNMENT-RUN program.

Speedy
03-21-2010, 12:20 PM
Show me exactly WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it explicitly state that the BIG GOVERNMENT can regulate (MORE LIKE TAKEOVER AND RAPE) Air Travel or Drug Regulations or Internet Communications??

I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT.

CHECK. MATE.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/raehall/cracked/unicorn.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Exactly. those are NOT in the constitution therefore the Government has no place in them.

I understand now. Tea Party for Life.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Exactly. those are NOT in the constitution therefore the Government has no place in them.

I understand now. Tea Party for Life.

http://www.calstrawberry.com/recipes/recipeImages/Coconut%20Strawberry%20Cake.jpg

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 12:26 PM
Exactly. those are NOT in the constitution therefore the Government has no place in them.

I understand now. Tea Party for Life.

DUMB ASS

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:28 PM
Who made the claim that any non-profit business is socialist, besides you? You used the USPS as an example of tax dollars going to support a universal service and I simply pointed out that they no longer receive tax dollars for support. You're counter argument to conservative resistance to Govt health care is dissolving.

FeebMaster
03-21-2010, 12:29 PM
Sounds good to me.

http://i41.tinypic.com/zv2bs1.jpg

Speedy
03-21-2010, 12:30 PM
Exactly. those are NOT in the constitution therefore the Government has no place in them.

I understand now. Tea Party for Life.

http://blog.roots.com/.a/6a00e553c41c918834010536eb38d1970c-800wi

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:30 PM
Who made the claim that any non-profit business is socialist, besides you? You used the USPS as an example of tax dollars going to support a universal service and I simply pointed out that they no longer receive tax dollars for support. You're counter argument to conservative resistance to Govt health care is dissolving.

The Public Option health insurance plan was designed to be a non-profit service that still takes in revenue. According to this post, the Public Option was NOT socialist.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:31 PM
Sounds good to me.

http://i41.tinypic.com/zv2bs1.jpg

lol. TeaParty.jpg

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:40 PM
The Public Option health insurance plan was designed to be a non-profit service that still takes in revenue. According to this post, the Public Option was NOT socialist.

I don't understand what you're arguing for. The bill under consideration, or something else. But how could a public option take in revenue, except for tax revenue? The Post Office is paid for by each individual who buys a stamp or mails a package. No one has to pay taxes to provide free postal services for others.

Apache
03-21-2010, 12:41 PM
Where should we start?

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

VA Benefits.




I AM A TEA PARTY MEMBER. A REAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SOCIALISM. IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE SOCIALISM WE SHOULD FIGHT TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS OF OUR LIVES.

You are a COMPLETE idiot!

You don't know the first thing about Conservatives or their beliefs. Why are you even here?

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:43 PM
I don't understand what you're arguing for. The bill under consideration, or something else. But how could a public option take in revenue, except for tax revenue? The Post Office is paid for by each individual who buys a stamp or mails a package. No one has to pay taxes to provide free postal services for others.

The Public Option wasn't a totally free option. It was free for the very poor and for the vast majority of people was designed only to offer a competitive rate, not be a freebie. Because they didn't have to worry about profits, they could focus more on paying out claims (rather than reducing payouts, as any profit-driven company should do unless it wants to fail) and lowering premiums and deductibles (because it doesn't have angry shareholders upset about low profits).

Then, the Free Market industry options would be forced to use their legendary innovation to find new ways to cut costs.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 12:45 PM
You are a COMPLETE idiot!

You don't know the first thing about Conservatives or their beliefs. Why are you even here?

I listen to 8 hours of Conservative Talk radio a day and read conservative books regularly. I think I know a thing or two about it. In fact, I'm re-reading Glenn Beck's "Arguing With Idiots" (The contemporary conservative handbook which I proudly own), so very few of the arguments leveled here are new to me.

fettpett
03-21-2010, 12:50 PM
Where should we start?

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

VA Benefits.




I AM A TEA PARTY MEMBER. A REAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SOCIALISM. IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE SOCIALISM WE SHOULD FIGHT TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS OF OUR LIVES.

ok, first off there is a difference between socialized entitlement programs and Government run services outlined in the Constitution.

Services:
Emergency Services (ie Police and Fire)

Postal Service

Defense (Military: Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Militia's, National Guard, also includes care for retired soliders)

Interstate Commerce (ie, Railways, Highways/Freeways, Bridges, suppose technically you could throw the internet in here too)


and Entitlements and/or Big Brother Government:
Social Security
Medicaid
Medicare
SCHIP
DEA
ATF
IRS
FDA
NPR/PBS
Farm Substies (these are given to Farmers that DON'T produce crops you dunce, not those that are producing)

Your idiocy prevents you from thinking logically. Conservatives have no issues with the Parks system, Public Museums and Zoo's, hell most museums and Zoo's relies on private donations for major projects, NOT the Local/State/Federal Government.

Most Hospitals are privately run and operated, unless run by the County/State don't receive a lot of money from State or Federal Governments and nor do we Care if the Federal Government helps with research that is Viable and Ethical, nor care if public goods come from such research.

Many of these services are better provided by private entities. I would much rather if the Union I was a member of had saved it's money to help us when my plant closed instead of spending the money on getting the Fucktard elected, instead most of us are suck trying to look for work in a shithole state that has had a Lib running the state into the ground for 8 years by increasing taxes to the point that companies leave or don't bother locating here.

Lager
03-21-2010, 12:50 PM
The Public Option wasn't a totally free option. It was free for the very poor and for the vast majority of people was designed only to offer a competitive rate, not be a freebie. Because they didn't have to worry about profits, they could focus more on paying out claims (rather than reducing payouts, as any profit-driven company should do unless it wants to fail) and lowering premiums and deductibles (because it doesn't have angry shareholders upset about low profits).

Then, the Free Market industry options would be forced to use their legendary innovation to find new ways to cut costs.

You do realize that there are currently insurers, such as Blue Cross that are non profit, don't you? I bet you didn't. You're too stuck on lib talking points. How much profit do you think the average insurance company takes in? You've bought the "evil insurance company" meme pretty solidly.

Speedy
03-21-2010, 12:51 PM
The Public Option wasn't a totally free option. It was free for the very poor and for the vast majority of people was designed only to offer a competitive rate, not be a freebie. Because they didn't have to worry about profits, they could focus more on paying out claims (rather than reducing payouts, as any profit-driven company should do unless it wants to fail) and lowering premiums and deductibles (because it doesn't have angry shareholders upset about low profits).

Then, the Free Market industry options would be forced to use their legendary innovation to find new ways to cut costs.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/speed_addiction/th_Movie.jpg (http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/speed_addiction/?action=view&current=Movie.flv)

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 12:58 PM
reductio ad absurdum


Where should we start?

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

VA Benefits.




I AM A TEA PARTY MEMBER. A REAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SOCIALISM. IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE SOCIALISM WE SHOULD FIGHT TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS OF OUR LIVES.

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:05 PM
The Public Option health insurance plan was designed to be a non-profit service that still takes in revenue. According to this post, the Public Option was NOT socialist.

How fucking old are you ?

fettpett
03-21-2010, 01:08 PM
he's mentally 3

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:09 PM
I listen to 8 hours of Conservative Talk radio a day and read conservative books regularly. I think I know a thing or two about it. In fact, I'm re-reading Glenn Beck's "Arguing With Idiots" (The contemporary conservative handbook which I proudly own), so very few of the arguments leveled here are new to me.

No, you hear talk radio, you don't listen. If you did "listen" you wouldn't have come up with that rupugnant list...

You sir, are no Conservative. You are a Leftist troll trying to impress....

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:11 PM
and Entitlements and/or Big Brother Government:
Social Security
Medicaid
Medicare
SCHIP
DEA
ATF
IRS
FDA
NPR/PBS
Farm Substies (these are given to Farmers that DON'T produce crops you dunce, not those that are producing)

So you support getting rid of all of these?

Also not all farm subsidies are given to not produce crops.

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:11 PM
reductio ad absurdum

In latin, if you please....:p

Troll
03-21-2010, 01:14 PM
Where should we start?

Social Security

That's my number one, too - good starting place. Stop taxing me for it, and I won't complain when it goes away.


Medicare/Medicaid

Works for me, stop taxing me for it, and I won't complain when they go away.


State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Works for me, stop taxing me for it, and I won't complain when they go away.


US Postal Service

This can stay, and I'm not too bothered about being taxed for it, since it's explicitly authorized by the Constitution. However, it should be bound by the same competitive forces as FedEx and UPS.


Roads and Highways

The USDOT can go away, as far as I'm concerned. Let the states figure out how to lay their roads and build their bridges.


Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

Sounds good to me - if the FAA ceases to exist, I'll make my fortune running an airline that profiles. ;)


The US Railway System

Works for me, stop taxing me for it, and I won't complain when it goes away.


Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Leave these all up to the states or the private sector. They can collect the revenue from Sales Tax. If they can't afford it without robbing me for it, then they can't afford it.


Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Two words: Private. Sector.


Public and State Universities and Colleges

Let them figure it out - they're academics, aren't they? Jack up tuition, parking prices, textbook prices, cafeteria prices, and drop "Diversity Studies" from their curricula.


Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Works for me. Stop taxing me for it, and I won't complain when it goes away. It's not like the Department of Education serves any real purpose anyway.


Sesame Street

I'll give PBS this - at least it's partially funded by people voluntarily donating to it.


Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Fine, it's not like they're listening anyways. :cool:

Let me save both of us some time.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I saw exactly one power in your post that was delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 01:15 PM
So you support getting rid of all of these?

Also not all farm subsidies are given to not produce crops.

http://sweettater.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fruitcake.jpg

fettpett
03-21-2010, 01:20 PM
So you support getting rid of all of these?

Also not all farm subsidies are given to not produce crops.

yes i do, no need for them and waste Billions in Tax payers money

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:22 PM
So you support getting rid of all of these?

Also not all farm subsidies are given to not produce crops.

You bet your ass I do.

The first 4 are way too abused and defrauded. They know it, yet do NOTHING to end it, so burn em.


The second 4 are bloated, mismanaged and power hungry. They don't do what they're supposed to, and over-reach where they shouldn't. Bye-bye...

NPR/PBS, who listens/watches them? They can't hack it without Gov't help. See ya....

If your crop ain't making you money, switch yer freakin' crop! End the double-dipping subsides as well!

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 01:24 PM
lol

Tea Party 4 Life

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:28 PM
lol

Tea Party 4 Life

Idiot :rolleyes:

fettpett
03-21-2010, 01:28 PM
lol

Tea Party 4 Life

*shakes head* idiot

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 01:39 PM
Most of that list should be transferred over to the private sector. My opinion is that the only things on that list that jump right out at me that the government should be involved in is the military, the infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement. Those things, I will argue are not socialist in that they are the minimum deliverables that any government regardless of ideology should be maintaining in order to provide a stable society.

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:48 PM
Most of that list should be transferred over to the private sector. My opinion is that the only things on that list that jump right out at me that the government should be involved in is the military, the infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement. Those things, I will argue are not socialist in that they are the minimum deliverables that any government regardless of ideology should be maintaining in order to provide a stable society.

True, however Wee Wee is playing the Left's favorite game....extremes!

Zeus
03-21-2010, 01:49 PM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 01:49 PM
lol

Tea Party 4 Life

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/8/5/e/85e1a685d05e812e2fb2b9f26d3496fd.jpg

Apache
03-21-2010, 01:53 PM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Don't tell that to Zero!

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 01:57 PM
True, however Wee Wee is playing the Left's favorite game....extremes!

That is what I meant with the reductio ad absurdum statement. He is taking a position, working it out to an absurd extreme and then implying that the extreme condition invalidates the original condition.

Swampfox
03-21-2010, 02:00 PM
Wei,

Your thread makes no sense. You are confusing conservatism and libertarianism with anarchy.

On edit: Not to mention the proper roles and separation of powers between Federal, State and Local Municipal governments.

Wei Wu Wei
03-21-2010, 02:13 PM
That is what I meant with the reductio ad absurdum statement. He is taking a position, working it out to an absurd extreme and then implying that the extreme condition invalidates the original condition.

It implies that the reasoning behind the argument isn't consistent, and only applies in a very narrow scope, detached from the larger picture of social reality.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 02:15 PM
Where should we start?

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

VA Benefits.




I AM A TEA PARTY MEMBER. A REAL CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SOCIALISM. IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE SOCIALISM WE SHOULD FIGHT TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS OF OUR LIVES.
Any of these that is run or paid for at the federal level should be ended. Period.

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 02:34 PM
It implies that the reasoning behind the argument isn't consistent, and only applies in a very narrow scope, detached from the larger picture of social reality.

Who said that the reasoning behind something has to be consistent? Is that some type of universal law that I am not aware of? We are dealing with human beings here and I can't find many cases where the reasoning behind something is 100 percent consistent. The phrase "exception to the rule" implies that there are built in inconsistencies with most reasoning and the out come of that reasoning.

The question is why does this instance of human inconsistency tickle your fancy?

Articulate_Ape
03-21-2010, 03:00 PM
Exactly. All of those are services of the Government payed for with Taxes. We should dismantle all of these programs. Real Conservatives and Tea Partiers should stand true to their convinctions, stay internally consistent, and stand up for what's RIGHT.

The argument you are making smacks of a profound ignorance of the US Constitution. Have you ever read it? You should, so you don't look so stupid. In particular, the 10th Amendment and Article 8, Section 1.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 03:26 PM
Who said that the reasoning behind something has to be consistent? Is that some type of universal law that I am not aware of? We are dealing with human beings here and I can't find many cases where the reasoning behind something is 100 percent consistent. The phrase "exception to the rule" implies that there are built in inconsistencies with most reasoning and the out come of that reasoning.

The question is why does this instance of human inconsistency tickle your fancy?

The "universal law" in question would be the Principle of Contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction).

In so far as one cares to hold true beliefs, one should be caring about internal consistency. Contradicting beliefs cannot both be true at the same time.

Sure, sometimes "consistency" simply refers to matters of convention - but thats not how it was used. When someone refers to internal consistency they are talking about the compatibility of beliefs.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 03:28 PM
That is what I meant with the reductio ad absurdum statement. He is taking a position, working it out to an absurd extreme and then implying that the extreme condition invalidates the original condition.

A successful 'reductio ad absurdem' is generally thought to actually falsify, or at least highlight some problems in someones reasoning.

I believe Rush calls it: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 03:34 PM
Wilbur the master of the absurd.






Quote this so the whiny bitch can see it!

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 03:38 PM
The "universal law" in question would be the Principle of Contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction).

In so far as one cares to hold true beliefs, one should be caring about internal consistency. Contradicting beliefs cannot both be true at the same time.

Sure, sometimes "consistency" simply refers to matters of convention - but thats not how it was used. When someone refers to internal consistency they are talking about the compatibility of beliefs.

The law of contradiction does not apply here, but nice try.

For example you require inconsistent levels of proof for varying points of view. Do you contradict your own epistemology because you need absolute proof of the existence of God but you need only circumstantial evidence for macro evolution and global warming.

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 03:40 PM
A successful 'reductio ad absurdem' is generally thought to actually falsify, or at least highlight some problems in someones reasoning.

I believe Rush calls it: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".



Truth fears no question; oooooo thats a good one.

How about this;
Wilbur listens to no RIGHT answer.

PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR IGNORE LIST TOO. :D

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 03:45 PM
A successful 'reductio ad absurdem' is generally thought to actually falsify, or at least highlight some problems in someones reasoning.

I believe Rush calls it: "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".

In this case our friend is using it to highlight problems he sees with the reasoning of people who want to eliminate socialism buy showing how many government functions may in fact be socialistic. By throwing out the baby with the bath water he is attempting to show inconsistency (not necessarily contradiction). However, many of those "socialistic functions" are what I believe to be basic requirements for any government and transcend ideology. If the features I listed in a previous post were not a part of a government then the government would quickly cease to exist.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 03:48 PM
The law of contradiction does not apply here, but nice try.

It always applies - you're free to violate it of course, but to do so is to intentionally believe nonsense.



For example you require inconsistent levels of proof for varying points of view. Do you contradict your own epistemology because you need absolute proof of the existence of God but you need only circumstantial evidence for macro evolution and global warming.

Huh? Those arent my views.

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 03:57 PM
It always applies - you're free to violate it of course, but to do so is to intentionally believe nonsense.


Huh? Those arent my views.

So you don't view macro evolution and agw as real?

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 04:12 PM
Inconsistent means lacking in agreement. I can the view that abortion is wrong but birth control is OK. Depending on what evidence is being cited those views may be inconsistent but the don't contradict. If I don't accept that a life begins a contraception but when the egg implants it self in the uterus then in my mind the views are consistent but to someone else who believes that life begins at conception they my views are inconsistent. Since we can't agree the point were life begins then a state of contradiction can't be determined.

On the other hand, if I state something like all life is sacred and life begins at conception and then say that I am for oral contraception then I am contradicting my position since oral contraception destroys the fertilized egg. All can agree I am contradicting myself because I have ignored mby onw definition. Whether some else agrees with my definition or not it is obvious that I am contradicting myself because I believe it.

Apache
03-21-2010, 04:16 PM
Wilbur the master of the absurd.



Quote this so the whiny bitch can see it!

You mean like this :confused: :p

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 04:22 PM
You mean like this :confused: :p

Originally Posted by Rockntractor
Wilbur the master of the absurd.



Quote this so the whiny bitch can see it!


Yea, like this.:D

wilbur
03-21-2010, 04:23 PM
So you don't view macro evolution and agw as real?

I view them as both highly probable. I believe that most gods are nonsensical and poorly evidenced. Nothing inconsistent about that at all.

Part of the problem here, is that you posed a question in the form of a fallacy.


For example you require inconsistent levels of proof for varying points of view.

That was your presumption (ie, the claim which you want to demonstrate). Onto the question you asked:



Do you contradict your own epistemology because you need absolute proof of the existence of God but you need only circumstantial evidence for macro evolution and global warming.


This question is actually in the form of a fallacy called a "complex question". Any possible direct answer to the question will necessarily require that I submit to your presumption, that I am inconsistent in my beliefs. Sorry, you gotta do more work than that.

Its neither true that I need absolute proof of the existence of God, and nor is it true that I believe in AGW and TTOE based on only circumstantial evidence. Its also not true that atheism is inconsistent with belief of evolution and agw.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 04:38 PM
Truth fears no question; oooooo thats a good one.

How about this;
Wilbur listens to no RIGHT answer.

PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR IGNORE LIST TOO. :D

That all hinges on how committed you are to harassment.

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 04:45 PM
That all hinges on how committed you are to harassment.

PUTZ

FlaGator
03-21-2010, 04:50 PM
I view them as both highly probable. I believe that most gods are nonsensical and poorly evidenced. Nothing inconsistent about that at all.

Part of the problem here, is that you posed a question in the form of a fallacy.



That was your presumption (ie, the claim which you want to demonstrate). Onto the question you asked:



This question is actually in the form of a fallacy called a "complex question". Any possible direct answer to the question will necessarily require that I submit to your presumption, that I am inconsistent in my beliefs. Sorry, you gotta do more work than that.

Its neither true that I need absolute proof of the existence of God, and nor is it true that I believe in AGW and TTOE based on only circumstantial evidence. Its also not true that atheism is inconsistent with belief of evolution and agw.

We have really drifted of topic.

I will end my part by stating that I believe that you are attempting to justify the varying standards of proof you seem to use when dealing with subjects you are inclined to accept and those you aren't. I am not saying that I am not guilty of this myself. I just think that I am more aware of this in my nature than you are in yours and because of this awareness I am much more willing to own up to my own errant nature than you are of yours.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 07:25 PM
The Public Option health insurance plan was designed to be a non-profit service that still takes in revenue. According to this post, the Public Option was NOT socialist.

Bullshit. You know full well that the government will not take in enough to cover expenses - which will result in both higher taxes AND rationing. The current government run health care plans deny more claims than all private insurance companies combined. :rolleyes: If the dems were interested in real reform they would end all government mandates to the industry. They would make it portable both across state lines and away from jobs. They would end asinine requirements where by insurance companies are required to cover stupid things such as impotence, gender reassignment, etc. PA for example requires all policies to cover pregnancy - and prohibits companies from offering discounts to men seeing as how we'll NEVER use such coverage.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 07:29 PM
The Public Option wasn't a totally free option. It was free for the very poor and for the vast majority of people was designed only to offer a competitive rate, not be a freebie. Because they didn't have to worry about profits, they could focus more on paying out claims (rather than reducing payouts, as any profit-driven company should do unless it wants to fail) and lowering premiums and deductibles (because it doesn't have angry shareholders upset about low profits).

Then, the Free Market industry options would be forced to use their legendary innovation to find new ways to cut costs.

FREE? What parallel universe are you from? :rolleyes: Someone has to pay for it - so it's NOT free.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 07:29 PM
I listen to 8 hours of Conservative Talk radio a day and read conservative books regularly. I think I know a thing or two about it. In fact, I'm re-reading Glenn Beck's "Arguing With Idiots" (The contemporary conservative handbook which I proudly own), so very few of the arguments leveled here are new to me.

liar.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 07:32 PM
Idiot :rolleyes:

stop insulting the idiots. Wee Wee is clearly a total FUCKTARD.

wilbur
03-21-2010, 08:11 PM
A quick note on this:


Inconsistent means lacking in agreement. I can the view that abortion is wrong but birth control is OK. Depending on what evidence is being cited those views may be inconsistent but the don't contradict. If I don't accept that a life begins a contraception but when the egg implants it self in the uterus then in my mind the views are consistent but to someone else who believes that life begins at conception they my views are inconsistent.

That belief would, as a matter of fact, be internally consistent. Someone else may contend that your premise that 'life begins at implantation' is false, but they could not demonstrate an actual contradiction there. They would have to admit that your conclusions are internally consistent with that belief.



Since we can't agree the point were life begins then a state of contradiction can't be determined.


What, after all the arguments are in, turns out to be empirically true makes no difference to the present state of those beliefs and whether they are internally consistent (ie, non-contradictory). If you have consistent beliefs, it does not gaurentee that any of them are true, but if you have inconsistent beliefs (ie, contradictory beliefs), it gaurentees at least some of them are false.



On the other hand, if I state something like all life is sacred and life begins at conception and then say that I am for oral contraception then I am contradicting my position since oral contraception destroys the fertilized egg.


Yes (which, incidentally, is where the vast majority of pro-lifers I have talked to tend to contradict themselves)



All can agree I am contradicting myself because I have ignored mby onw definition. Whether some else agrees with my definition or not it is obvious that I am contradicting myself because I believe it.

Well, actually, what you are saying here is correct, but unfortunately it contradicts your first paragraph :)

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 08:15 PM
stop insulting the idiots. Wee Wee is clearly a total FUCKTARD.

I think Wee Wee might be Wilbur's spawn, that would explain a lot.

PoliCon
03-21-2010, 08:20 PM
I think Wee Wee might be Wilbur's spawn, that would explain a lot.

It amazes me that people still bother with wilbur. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
03-21-2010, 08:29 PM
I think Wee Wee might be Wilbur's spawn, that would explain a lot.

That would make him an asshole baby. A little turd.

Big Guy
03-21-2010, 08:46 PM
That would make him an asshole baby. A little turd.

A little turd that won't flush, no matter how many times you push the handle.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-22-2010, 05:30 AM
Show me exactly WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it explicitly state that the BIG GOVERNMENT can regulate (MORE LIKE TAKEOVER AND RAPE) Air Travel or Drug Regulations or Internet Communications??

I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT.

CHECK. MATE.


Um. You better go take a look at your definition of Socialism.

It is CENTRAL control - as in the FEDERAL government.

Now, most of the things you list are NOT the federal government. The things that are?? Most of them SHOULD NOT be and those that are useful WOULD have been developed (or a substitute) in the private sector.

As for the military and the like. Including them as socialism, is really rather juvenile.

FlaGator
03-22-2010, 06:49 AM
A quick note on this:



That belief would, as a matter of fact, be internally consistent. Someone else may contend that your premise that 'life begins at implantation' is false, but they could not demonstrate an actual contradiction there. They would have to admit that your conclusions are internally consistent with that belief.



What, after all the arguments are in, turns out to be empirically true makes no difference to the present state of those beliefs and whether they are internally consistent (ie, non-contradictory). If you have consistent beliefs, it does not gaurentee that any of them are true, but if you have inconsistent beliefs (ie, contradictory beliefs), it gaurentees at least some of them are false.



Yes (which, incidentally, is where the vast majority of pro-lifers I have talked to tend to contradict themselves)



Well, actually, what you are saying here is correct, but unfortunately it contradicts your first paragraph :)

Noted... I was very tired when I was thinking this through.

Zathras
03-22-2010, 11:27 AM
lol

Idiot Party 4 Life

Fixed....Tea party and your Idiot party are not the same.

NJCardFan
03-22-2010, 11:39 AM
The Public Option health insurance plan was designed to be a non-profit service that still takes in revenue. According to this post, the Public Option was NOT socialist.

I'm not going to comment on the original post because so many have already echoed the same sentiment as I but I need to ask, please tell me you aren't this dense. Please tell me you aren't this stupid. It's obvious that you've never taken an economics course in your life but even a child knows that a company that provides a service cannot do so without profit. It also cannot exist if only a percentage are paying into that service. For instance, you brought up medical care for the poor being free. Again, you are either lampooning the idea, don't have an understanding how things work, or you're just a fucking idiot. My guess is the latter. Maybe I can break it down so it might penetrate what little gray matter you might have:

Let's say for argument's sake that healthcare is covered under a single payer option. That said, we have 2 people, John Q. Public and Jane Doe. 2 separate unrelated people who both go to the same doctor. Mr. Public is unemployed and a deadbeat who spends his time getting high and has no intentions of getting a job and has little money while Ms. Doe is employed and makes enough to take care of herself. At their doctors office, the average cost of treating someone is $50. They both go to the doctor on the same day and are treated. Cost: $50 per person. Since Mr. Public is poor, does the doctor simply eat that $50? Of course not. The government is the paying entity for both and pays the doctor the $100 is cost to treat both. However the difference here is that Ms. Doe is a productive member of society and pays taxes but Mr. Public does not meaning that Ms. Doe's taxes went to pay Mr. Public's medical bill. That, my friend, is called socialism. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, right? These words are right from Karl Marx, right? So, how does the government compensate for this shortfall, by making Ms. Doe pay more in taxes. They both benefit yet only 1 of them is actually contributing. Does that seem fair to you?

Now, let's look at insurance premiums. Let's say that, for example, Aetna collects on average $1,000 per customer per year in premiums and for the most part, the average payout for a year is about $700 per person. This means they make a profit of $300 per person, right? This probably pisses you off. However, what if next year the average payout if $1,200 per customer. This means they operated at a loss of $200 per customer for that year. That's a lot of scratch. Then the next year they operate at a cost of $1,100 per customer. This means over a period of 3 years they break even. But what if they didn't make a profit in that first year? They'd be in dutch the 2nd year, wouldn't they? No business can survive like this. None. The big difference between Aetna operating like this and the government being the provider is that the government can raise taxes to cover their losses. This is why insurance companies do what they do because it's a matter of survival. They don't have the ability or option of raping the consumer for more revenue because more than likely the consumer would opt for another company. With a single payer entity, we won't have this option. We'd be stuck. You're taxes went up? TFB. Of course this is all beyond your level of comprehension so this will fall on deaf ears(eyes).

As for you listening to conservative talk radio, it's obvious you do so out of disdain, not because you agree with them. And you're little quip about a conservative handbook, we don't have one and it certainly wouldn't be Beck's book because a lot of what he says he says to be funny. If we conservatives were to have a handbook it would probably be the Federalist Papers or Common Sense. Better yet, we do have one. It's called the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps you should read it some day.

Oh, and you bringing up the 10th Amendment makes me laugh. You liberals have a lot of gall. You use the Bill of Rights as a matter of convenience and not as it's intended meaning. If you did, you'd respect the all of the Amendments and not the ones that fit your arguments when you find it convenient.