ZEB,
“You dodged issues, claimed victory when none was apparent and in general been quite disingenuous. No one respects that.”
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
i also answered all of the questions put to me (gay marriage thread, abortion thread)[/quote]
Nope.
I still don’t know why a fetus is better in a trashcan than in my stomach.
kam,
a trashcan shouldn’t be there and you would probably get an infection. a fetus, as i mentioned, of less than 12 weeks has the same likelihood of growing to adulthood as a trashcan (or a mop, or a 3 ring binder)when removed from the womb, the only difference being that you can actually grow a fetus in your womb and the placing of a trashcan there is a very strange accident.
i do not dispute that a healthy 12 week fetus can grow into a viable baby in 8-10 more weeks, and i have not asked once for more abortions, i have in fact hoped for less (none would be optimal), my initial argument was not about abortion it was about funding for services for children with disabilities, it appears that my statement for an increase in that funding was harder to argue against than calling me a baby killing monster that likes to rip the limbs off of unborn children.
Here is what I want (and what a lot of less militant pro-choice folks want), if your side would say " we will vote to make sure that all of the children born with disabilities and all of the unwanted, neglected abandoned and abused children are funded and supported for as long as necessary (18 for healthy kids, death for severely disabled kids)"
I would happily hop over to your side of the aisle on this issue (except in the case of rape and the mothers life in danger) and support a ban on all other abortions. The problem is that in todays political climate that will never happen.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,
“You dodged issues, claimed victory when none was apparent and in general been quite disingenuous. No one respects that.”
You never answered the question regarding why liberal answers to poverty such as throwing more money to the poor have not worked. And you know you have not answered this as I’ve been following you around the board trying to get you to answer it.
In addition to this you’ve claimed victory a number of times and been laughed at for doing it by not just me but many others.
Whereas I have indeed responded to all of your 1990’s liberal talking points.
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Liberals become liberals because they want to get away with something their guilty consciences wouldn’t permit otherwise.
They thus become pure evil.
[/quote]
This is the kind of rhetoric used by genocidal maniacs throughout history.
[/quote]
Pure evil is manifest in humans without a conscience, such as shown by serial killers, most members of Congress, Barack Obama, and liberals like Obama.
People deny the existence of right and wrong not to do right but to do wrong.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
i also answered all of the questions put to me (gay marriage thread, abortion thread)[/quote]
Nope.
I still don’t know why a fetus is better in a trashcan than in my stomach.
[/quote]
Having children is an embracement of life. Abortionists and those who support abortion on demand embrace death (I make exception for rape or incest victims because I’m kind.)
Since gays use sex for the MAIN purpose of having pleasure instead of its genuine main purpose (having children), they are perverting the main reason for sex. They are mentally ill. That’s why long ago, homosexuals were called homosexual perverts. They are perverts.
The question always arises of people who don’t want kids, too old, and so forth. Those people would still say that the main purpose of sex is procreation. Homos don’t – so they are perverts and mentally ill.
HH,
Stating that liberals are pure evil is fine, it is after all your opinion, however is is not liberals that want to grow the military, build nukes and cut off social program spending for the poor and disenfranchised (many of whom are children) that is conservatives. So to summarize, feeding, educating, caring for other Americans = evil. Starving, promoting ignorance, and building weapons of death = good. Did I miss anything there?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Liberals become liberals because they want to get away with something their guilty consciences wouldn’t permit otherwise.
They thus become pure evil.
[/quote]
This is the kind of rhetoric used by genocidal maniacs throughout history.
[/quote]
Pure evil is manifest in humans without a conscience, such as shown by serial killers, most members of Congress, Barack Obama, and liberals like Obama.
People deny the existence of right and wrong not to do right but to do wrong.
[/quote]
Stating that all liberals are “pure evil” is like the goofy ultra libs that call all conservatives racists.
Both accusations are false and leads to unproductive and unnecessary hatred on both sides.
IMO
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
HH,
Stating that liberals are pure evil is fine, it is after all your opinion, however is is not liberals that want to grow the military, build nukes and cut off social program spending for the poor and disenfranchised (many of whom are children) that is conservatives. So to summarize, feeding, educating, caring for other Americans = evil. Starving, promoting ignorance, and building weapons of death = good. Did I miss anything there?[/quote]
What’s your definition of liberalism? Perhaps we are writing at cross purposes here.
To me, a liberal is a person (or subset of people) who forces other people into a relationship that the other person does not want. By ‘forces’, that means they want the other person to suspend their own rational judgment and replace it with the liberals’ judgment, often under threat of jail or violence.
All relationships between human beings should be voluntary on all sides. That is the hall mark of a civilised society. Forcing someone to pay for healthcare or a war or any cause, no matter how wonderful or heinous, makes the person who initiates force into an evil person.
Whoever wants a nanny state is a liberal. This can only be achieved by forcing those who don’t want to provide the nanny. Therefore, liberals are evil people.
HH,
I don’t want a nanny state, I certainly don’t want the government micro-managing my life, so yes I think we are talking about different kinds of liberal.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
HH,
Stating that liberals are pure evil is fine, it is after all your opinion, however is is not liberals that want to grow the military, build nukes and cut off social program spending for the poor and disenfranchised (many of whom are children) that is conservatives. So to summarize, feeding, educating, caring for other Americans = evil. Starving, promoting ignorance, and building weapons of death = good. Did I miss anything there?[/quote]
Yeah you missed a lot. You imply conservatives are evil for wanting to cut off funding to the poor yet you’ve not shown how that funding reduces poverty. And in fact poverty has been on the rise since LBJ’s liberal “war on poverty” of the mid 1960’s. How does handing someone something for doing nothing help them? Tell us all your thoughts on this if you have any beyond the basic talking points.
Stop playing the part of the ass clown B r i a n. You spout out dated liberal jibberish and you’re unable to back it up in any way.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
HH,
I don’t want a nanny state, I certainly don’t want the government micro-managing my life, so yes I think we are talking about different kinds of liberal.[/quote]
You just want them in charge of 1/7th of the economy via health care. And through that you want them to have the power to tell you what doctor to go to and whether or not you or a loved one can have an operation.
ZEB,
I would prefer to have an alternative to “Obamacare” it is far from perfect, in fact I think it is probably a net loss compared to the current system, but it is a start. Getting healthcare to everyone in this country has to be a primary goal of the government as the population expands, distance between people shrinks and the possibility of medical calamities grows.
Right now there are tens of millions of Americans without insurance, some of them are hard working Americans that have shitty jobs with no bennies, some of them had a coverage gap and were unable (due to pre-existing conditions) to get coverage at their new place of employment.
I think it is funny that the people with all of the money are covered and the people with none of the money are covered (medicaid) but a bunch of people with families, busting their asses at low paying jobs don’t have coverage.
If we can find a way to make healthcare affordable for everyone and then let people opt in or out I am fine with that, if you truly don’t want insurance don’t get it, but I think that should bar you from any non-emergent care at a hospital. In other words, the days of Medicaid cab rides to the hospital for aspirin would be over, the days of emergency room visits for a sore throat would end.
I am not defending Obamacare as it is, but there has to be a way to cover eveyone that wants it.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,
I would prefer to have an alternative to “Obamacare” it is far from perfect, in fact I think it is probably a net loss compared to the current system, but it is a start.[/quote]
A start at handing government your rights. Who was it that said, “A government large enough to give you everything you want is also large enough to take everything you have.”
Go look it up B r i a n…
[quote]Getting healthcare to everyone in this country has to be a primary goal of the government as the population expands, distance between people shrinks and the possibility of medical calamities grows.
[/quote]
You’ve posted a lot of silly things in a scant few days, but nothing is as silly as the above.
Who says it’s governments responsibility? Why?
Tell us all why it’s governments responsibility to pay for your health care?
Who says that it is their duty to take money from those who can afford their own health care and hand it over to someone who has not earned it and does not deserve it?
Whose idea is this B r i a n?
Where did the concept first come from do you know?
Open up the borders of competition and allow insurance companies to compete and the problem is solved. As usual all government will do is muck it up. How is the Post Office doing?
Not the governments responsibility or duty. This is one of the nuttiest ideas ever concieved.
[quote]If we can find a way to make healthcare affordable for everyone and then let people opt in or out I am fine with that, if you truly don’t want insurance don’t get it, but I think that should bar you from any non-emergent care at a hospital. In other words, the days of Medicaid cab rides to the hospital for aspirin would be over, the days of emergency room visits for a sore throat would end.
I am not defending Obamacare as it is, but there has to be a way to cover eveyone that wants it.[/quote]
No B r i a n there doesn’t have to be a way to cover everyone. That’s called socialism. I told you how to do it above --It’s called competition.
Hand your rights to see your doctor over to your government and you will regret!
Zeb what we have is socialism for the wealthy , middle class and the wealthy both support the poor , but the wealthy do it at a lower percentage of their income . We will not even get into if I want to compete with a Behemoth like Home Depot or Walmart. Their tax cuts would mean I would have to earn %50 more just to compensate for their tax cuts . That is the Tyranny our founding Fathers were so pissed about
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeb what we have is socialism for the wealthy , middle class and the wealthy both support the poor , but the wealthy do it at a lower percentage of their income . We will not even get into if I want to compete with a Behemoth like Home Depot or Walmart. Their tax cuts would mean I would have to earn %50 more just to compensate for their tax cuts . That is the Tyranny our founding Fathers were so pissed about[/quote]
There’s so much wrong with what you’ve written that I barely know where to begin.
Let’s just do this:
The wealthy pay a higher rate of tax than do either the middle class or the poor, who pay nothing by the way.
The top 1% of tax payers pay 37% of all income tax paid.
The large companies in the US pay the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.
Pitt, I know the world looks confusing to you, but at least try to listen to people who know what they’re talking about and leave the democratic talking points behind. They make no sense and are said to in order to appeal to those who are weak minded, or are actually drinking from the government coffers.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeb what we have is socialism for the wealthy , middle class and the wealthy both support the poor , but the wealthy do it at a lower percentage of their income . We will not even get into if I want to compete with a Behemoth like Home Depot or Walmart. Their tax cuts would mean I would have to earn %50 more just to compensate for their tax cuts . That is the Tyranny our founding Fathers were so pissed about[/quote]
[/quote]
They make %90 of the income
ZEB,
Your points (though often wrong) would be easier to read if they came without the insults. It seems as if your need to fight overrides your need to sway opinions or find a consensus, I cannot imagine this would be a very effective character trait in the business world.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zeb what we have is socialism for the wealthy , middle class and the wealthy both support the poor , but the wealthy do it at a lower percentage of their income . We will not even get into if I want to compete with a Behemoth like Home Depot or Walmart. Their tax cuts would mean I would have to earn %50 more just to compensate for their tax cuts . That is the Tyranny our founding Fathers were so pissed about[/quote]
[/quote]
They make %90 of the income
[/quote]
First of all show me the data where you found such a statistic. Secondly, if it is true do you expect them to pay 90% of their income in taxes? How does this number, even if it is true, change one single thing that I posted?
Edit: according to this site the top 1% control about 34% of the wealth. But once again, so what? How much do you think you can punish the rich before they stop producing? And when they stop producing all of those social programs that the dems love so much go down the toilet.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,
Your points (though often wrong) [/quote]
So wrong that you have not been able to even refute ONE OF THEM.
Did I hurt your wittle feelings again? Oh…
The fact is you’ve thrown out your share of insults on many threads. So much so that those you were debating with over homosexual marriage had to tell you to knock it off. Must be rough being a thin skin lefty. Always dishing it out but never being able to take it.
Well, I guess you can only imagine from where you’re sitting huh chump?
