13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 12/4/13 05:10 PM, Feoric wrote:
Where did I assert that there are currently mass groups of people who are spontaneously* dying due to pure starvation instead of stating that a certain portion of tax revenue collected goes towards preventing mass groups of people from spontaneously* dying due to pure starvation via SNAP and food stamps?
Dipshit... read.
I asked you specifically about where all these people were who would otherwise be starving to death if it weren't for welfare in the US (or any industrialized nation really).
You linked me to people and kids not eating enough nutritious foods. Not only does that not answer my question, but it also paints a very broad brush.
My point is: How can you claim that it's welfare alone that keeps people from mass starvation when there's absolutely no history of people starving to death in this country even before our welfare state and current technology?
If you're point is that it keeps people from simply only being hungry every now and then... well great fucking failure of a job considering the results.
But don't fucking kid yourself if you actually consider that starving. Only 1st world idiots like you wouldn't have any idea of actual starvation is.
Last I checked, I never read about this being a frequent occurrence in this country's history.
At 12/4/13 04:37 PM, Feoric wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=food+insecurity+in+the+united+states
Oh look, you even Googled it and still couldn't answer the question.
I asked you where these mass amounts of dead people from pure starvation were just popping up.
Could you do that? No!
Instead the only thing you can give me is children not eating enough adequate nutritious food which, ironically, includes overweight kids due to such a loose definition.
I ask again. Where are the mass groups of people who are spontaneously dying due to pure starvation?
At 12/4/13 04:32 PM, Feoric wrote:At 12/4/13 04:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Minority rights and taking care of the poor; well, religious types have a track record of doing that in any case.Yes! Tax dollar go towards building a functioning society where people don't starve to death. A shocking concept, I know.
But really? Taking care of the poor? Liberals? I guess it's easy using everyone else's money, right?
Yes... these mass groups of people who were constantly starving to death because they didn't have food stamps which occurred... when in American History?
At 12/4/13 02:49 PM, Entice wrote:
I'm not even a liberal, I'm trying to get you to see the hypocrisy of screaming "liberals tell me what to do because they're greedy" while simultaneously defending conservatives by asking "how are they any different?"
When did I ever say I liked Conservatives?
At 12/4/13 03:02 PM, Feoric wrote:
Well it's been clearly established that conservatives are the ones who champion minority rights, lgbt rights, women rights, taking care of the poor, granting easy access to immigration, protecting the rights of workers, and fixing healthcare, but those fucking piece of shit hypocrite lazy greedy liberals who control every media outlet in the entire world has convinced everyone they they're not. I'd feel persecuted, too.
Minority rights and taking care of the poor; well, religious types have a track record of doing that in any case.
But really? Taking care of the poor? Liberals? I guess it's easy using everyone else's money, right?
At 12/4/13 01:17 PM, Entice wrote:
No one said that. I do nothing to contribute to prison populations and my taxes still pay to keep prisoners behind bars. That list could go on and on.
But still forcing me to pay for people's non-violent, voluntary actions over what "might" happen as part of this "collective good" that you're telling me I'm forced to be a part of.
No. Everyone pays the tab, and "having something to do" with anything was never a criteria for paying taxes towards it.
Only because people like you force me to pay the tab.
What the hell are you on about? I'm stating the reality of the wide problems of society affecting individuals within. It has nothing to do with choice or being statist. Can crime rates not affect you? Can poverty not affect you? Even indirectly? Since when were these problems isolated to certain people in a perfect vacuum?
Telling me I'm affected by it isn't the statist part. It's how you use it as an excuse to further steal from me, tell me how to live, and to subsidize idiots.
But go back and think about the stupidity of your argument.
Are you actually going to say that because someone's actions, no matter how small, somehow influence someone else somewhere in some way even if they've never met; that it automatically becomes under the regulation of politicians?
Do you understand how utter bullshit that is? That means everyone is guilty of something every second of the day even towards people they've never met.
"You need to pay for this guy's behavior because they might do this to influence this which influences that which influences something back here that affects you in some way!"
The rest are moral problems. Those are different because the harm isn't definable, so they don't cost money or do anything practical, so far as I can tell. Which is why I disagree.
Translation: "I just don't like them telling me I can't do the things I want to do."
Strange what you know without me saying anything. I also never said it wrong to complain about societies values being at odds with yours, but you have to understand other perspectives on these issues and realize that it's not about greed and personally persecuted you.
It's always about greed.
People only contrive nice sounding excuses so they don't have to say it.
Humanity, as a species, is that low. People always ulterior motives.
Unless we pass legislation after bailing out the banks to prevent the same thing from happening again in the long run, but I wonder how conservatives felt about that...
Oh, you mean dodd-frank? Which established a Permanent bail out fund alongside the Federal Reserve, whereby said banks now own more wealth today than they did before the crash...
Hey, you know what I said about ulterior motives? Think for a second... have you ever wondered why it is that the most heavily regulated industry in the US happens to have the biggest monopolies and most wealth?
Could it be because when politicians say they're writing legislation to help the consumer, that their really just bullshitting you?
I can't think of the last time I needed to get an abortion or knew anyone that did, and I don't see how any problems caused by unwanted children could potentially affect me, but magically not affect you.
You don't need to do it now. You just want the option available to you when you fuck up later.
People are like children in a toy store. They'll want a toy they see on the shelf and begin throwing a tantrum in order to get what they want.
On one hand you'll have the parent continue to tell their child "no" so the child learns and grows to be more mature.
On the other hand, you'll have the parent give in and buy the toy, contributing to their child's selfishness.
Guess which one you are.
At 12/4/13 02:50 AM, Entice wrote:
What a terrible fucking strawman. You do understand we're talking about societal problems right?
Societal problems that I never contributed to.
Societal problems that I had nothing to do with, but you're still demanding that I pick up the tab.
Problems that affect society as a whole? That you're part of society? "You" isn't being singled out to pay for anything and "your problem" is a problem that has and will affect the society you live in as a whole, and therefore affects you.
And was that my choice? Since when can you tell me what group I will or will not belong to? What's with this Statist/Authoritarian Majority Rule nonsense you're spewing?
How is what you're advocating any different from Conservatives advocating the war on drugs or banning gay marriage in an attempt to "promote family values" so we don't have "problem children" that end up "costing everyone" later?
It's no different. And you're just an inconsistent prick because I know full well that if you moved into a society that had a different set of values than you, you'd immediately start whining about it.
In the long run these problems will cost everyone (not just you) tax money either way (if you want to live here and don't illegally avoid paying taxes). Why not go with the less expensive option of paying for an abortion instead of paying for the social problems caused by unwanted children?
In the long run, letting the big banks go bust might cause unemployment to go up and for people to not get loans. It'll cost everyone (not just you) tax money either way. Why not go with the "less expensive" option of paying for their salaries and mistakes instead?
Oh right... because it leads to this little thing called Moral Hazard whereby they'll wind up endlessly needing to be bailed out constantly causing the situation to continuously deteriorate.
It's not going to do shit in the long run, Genius. It's a by-product of people's "I want it now" attitude.
You may disagree about which option is cheaper (I guess...) but if you seriously can't understand that concept then I don't think anyone can explain it to you. Because that'd clearly mean that you lack a basic understanding of how society works.
I understand it perfectly. I also I understand that the human species is humorously pathetic, worthless, and selfish. So all of your bullshit isn't really about "helping society." That's just a convenient excuse for you to use so you won't have to say "helping me."
It's exactly like how you liberals now suddenly support economically fascist legislation that forces people, against their will, to become permanent customers of the insurance Corporations; an idea originally thought up by conservative think tanks and promoted by Republicans in the 90's.
Forcing the poor and lower middle class who're financially struggling to enrich these very corporations, making it even more difficult for them afford the essentials; all because YOU don't want their lack of insurance to cause hospitals to maybe cost you a higher premium when they have to go to the hospital and can't pay.
After all that talk about how horrible the insurance industry is. About how evil they are. About how you people were really going to stick it to them.
It turned out to only be about you.
At 12/4/13 12:25 AM, Warforger wrote:
Thanks for telling me what I think.
Shucks, you make it easy.
Not really, I wasn't at all saying someone getting an abortion is someone else's fault, but we all influence each other to some degree even if we don't fully realize it, if that wasn't the case then we'd all be lone nomads wandering the vast plains of the world.
Not shopping at Walmart affects Walmart sales. Because it affects their sales, your not shopping at Walmart counts as commerce... which is regulated by Government.
Congrats. Inactivity now counts as activity.
Love the logic there.
Ah no, I was saying it was more efficient to have abortions and that in the long run you save money by paying for them.
Save money... by paying for them.
Why?
Because you're too fucking lazy to encourage those people and help them yourself.
Must be easier forcing other people to do it.
How lazy are you? Really? "Your problem might affect me in some way somehow... YOU! Pay for their mistake so it might not affect me later!"
Are you seriously arguing that's what MIGHT happen, not what actually happens? It's hilarious because if you create Libertarian economics corporations MIGHT be more efficient and monopolies MIGHT not arise, but we don't have much evidence for this, for my conjecture (which I don't really believe in, I was just playing devil's advocate for an issue I don't care too much about) used evidence i.e. the declining crime rates after Roe v. Wade. That said that doesn't make it automatically right, I'm just saying you do alot of double standards.
Giving worthless people an easy out to constantly fuck up never works long term.
What you're doing is no different than what the banks did in '08. "If you don't bail us out, the financial system will collapse and people might not get loans. It's in your interest to bail us out of our bad decision making!"
You're using people as hostages to force them to pay for your shit.
Where do I do that? I said it was an appropriate function of the government to allow for abortions because in the long run it saves money and damage. Some government used it as population control; the Communist Romanian government outlawed abortion so that its population could recover from WWII and later on continue to grow.
Then you don't get to bitch about the Government placing restrictions on your lifestyle.
I mean after all... it is "the People's money", and just like with education, if you take Government funds then you're subject to Government restrictions.
Oh right... you're a hypocrite.
And I also don't want to hear idiots like you complain about further abortion clinic bombings. What the fuck do you expect to happen when forcibly take other people's money and use it to fund what they consider to be murder?
How are you be so mind-numbingly oblivious to the term blowback when it comes to domestic issues? You really are a neo-con.
He's not a god or anything, but he's certainly attacked too much and it's just baffling to see a guy who just argues for Climate Change is so hated I mean after all no one was outraged at Glenn Beck promoting gold or Bill Clinton creating charities to help people in Africa.
I don't give a shit about Glenn Beck or Bill Clinton.
I also don't give a shit about Al Gore investing in green energy. It's his money (funny how you consider it 'his' money when he uses it to support the things YOU like).
But when Beck buys the gold he promotes or when Clinton promotes charities that he supports, they're not being hypocrites about it.
Al Gore doesn't do a single fucking thing to curb his own emissions, but expects everyone else to.
Again thanks for telling me my beliefs and what I want you to do. It's so great how I help conform to your simplistic view of the world by adopting the beliefs you tell me I believe.
Forcing you?
All I'm doing is presenting you with a deal.
A deal where you can do anything you want, whenever you want; whether it be drugs, prostitution, gambling ect.. The only 1, just 1, condition I have for you follow is: If you fuck up in whatever choices you make; you can't come crawling back to me demanding that I bail you out of your bullshit situation.
And a worthless, little fuck like you actually starts whining about how "unfair" that so-called restriction is.
At 12/3/13 10:57 PM, Warforger wrote:
Bunch of bullshit
Here's what your response boils down to.
Human beings are a pathetic, selfish bunch of creatures. If there's 1 trait that all peoples of all cultures have, it's the innate belief that nothing bad that occurs through their own decision making is their fault; it will always be the fault of someone or something else.
They try desperately in, whatever it is, to absolve or excuse their own responsibility and put it on others.
THAT is exactly what you just did in your entire response to me. Look for vague, bullshit excuses over what "might" happen so that responsible people can bail YOU out of your own bullshit problem.
If that weren't true, then why do you put the responsibility on people who had nothing to do with it rather than on the parents who fucked up?
You sound like an Al Gore type environmentalist. You don't actually care about nature, you just want other people to pay more so your own front yard will look nice because you're too much of a lazy shit to do it yourself.
Why yes, I do love being told by upper class white people, who travel around on private jets, to drive less (I don't drive) and to bike more (which I already do).
At 12/3/13 09:59 PM, Warforger wrote:
Higher taxes isn't necessarily Liberal and never has been. In fact Higher taxes used to be a tenant of Conservatism until Reagan came about (well even then he still raised taxes by alot anyway).
I'm not talking about a tax rate. I'm talking about what taxes would pay for.
If you don't want people or the Government involved with your sex life, then don't force people to pay for your sex life.
If you don't want the Government involved in your sexual reproductive choices as a woman, then quit pretending you're a victim just because said Government doesn't pay for your elective abortion procedure.
At 12/3/13 09:29 PM, Entice wrote:
What the hell does that have to do with sexual liberation?
It seems that conservatives are often pro-censorship as well, but about different things.
Of course they are.
Their's is just based on an "ick" factor rather than "Ur monay r belong 2 me!"
At 12/2/13 07:34 PM, GameChild214 wrote: True Liberalism
Individualism
Bullshit.
"Social justice"
"For the collective good"
Secularism
True, but still wants to ban anything that hurts their feelings.
Equal liberty for all
Bullshit.
Only until they fuck up and demand a bail out.
Love for nature and the environment.
True.
Free and fair elections.
Eh...
Opposition to mysticism.
Only mysticism they don't like.
Immunity to far-right programming.
Bullshit.
Distain for inequality.
Bullshit.
"I support the 1964 civil rights act so we don't discriminate based on race!"
"I support affirmative action so we can discriminate based on race."
Sexual Liberation
Bullshit.
"My personal life is none of your business... but you should have to pay for it for me."
At 12/3/13 01:12 AM, Warforger wrote:
Forcing your beliefs on other isn't really unique to certain Liberals, Conservatives do it alot more and it's much more dangerous. That's not bias, what do Liberals do that is equivalent to pro-Life people harassing people who have had abortions causing those people to kill themselves?
The pro-lifers aren't reaching into my wallet.
At 11/28/13 04:48 PM, Fim wrote:
The taxpayer is forced into funding a lot worse than that
That's true except... that's still not an excuse.
You clearly don't know anything about what a methadone clinic is or why they are a viable alternative to letting addicts fall to the mercy of drug dealers. The war on drugs is a failed hangover from a conservative presidency, which has failed in every important aspect.
Yes... that war on drugs started by progressives in the early 1900's, continued by FDR going after pot to help his corporate friend, and ranked up from that by LBJ.
But thanks for proving my point.
"I decided to do drugs and fall victim to drug dealers... it's YOUR responsibility to help me!"
At 11/27/13 03:27 PM, Earfetish wrote:
What you don't seem to see is that I don't consider foetuses to be people; potential people at the very most.
But since we're discussing what should and shouldn't be worth killing, I would think that all of it should be based on some sort of scientific reasoning.
I don't like using the word "person" because it's a word without any real sort of scientific backing. A "person" is whatever society deems to be a "person" at the time, and within many cultures it excluded certain races, women, homosexuals, as well as children who weren't of 'child baring age.'
So your claim that a fetus isn't a person doesn't ultimately mean anything.
Biology, on the other hand, distinguishes a fetus as a genetically independent human life. A mere cluster of cells just like you, me, and every other living "person."
At 11/27/13 04:24 PM, Earfetish wrote: Ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman.
Bullshit.
This should be based solely on biology, not on someone's personal so called 'feelings.'
I mean hell, when pro-lifers claim that a fetus should be considered a person because it'll eventually be born, they're at least acknowledging a biological progression.
It's not near as stupid as "It's only a person based on how I feel!"
She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart.
It's not an invasion when you forced it into existence to begin with. You put it there through your own completely voluntary actions (which, of course, excludes rape - a justified reason for an abortion).
Calling it an invasion is no different than shoving someone onto your property and then shooting them for trespassing.
However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact.
It is proven. Particularly to people like me who don't view humanity as anything special. Which is why I always find it personally amusing how in whatever society, culture and time period; there's always one class of humanity that designates another class of humanity as either "not" or "less human" to justify killing that class for personal convenience.
At 11/27/13 02:47 PM, Earfetish wrote:
What proportion of abortions are performed in the 20 to 24 week period? What are the reasons for these abortions? The limit is 24 weeks because many foetal abnormalities do not become apparent until this time. The overwhelming majority of 'abortions of convenience' take place way before 24 weeks.
So why not carve out that exemption? What's the big deal to say "No, unless..."?
Oh, right. Because the way the states and you people would define it would be incredibly vague and so loose that anyone would qualify.
But why don't you answer my previous question?
As I've said before, I think it's pretty messed up to kill a fetus just because they might be born with some kind of disability (if it were something that resulted not living long after birth, then I'd understand). You're admitting that people who are disabled are essentially "less human" and are therefore expendable.
Let me put this in a way you can understand.
I'm against the death penalty. Why? Because I know there are some people who are actually innocent and put to death anyway (not a perfect system). I would say that getting 1000 death penalty cases correct isn't worth getting that 1 innocent person killed because of a system screw up.
Along the same idea we know, for a fact, that there are many people who are born with disabilities who excel at life and live normally.
I would say that since we know that as a fact, I would say that just because there are some fetus' that are born with a disability who wont lead normal lives, that shouldn't justify killing those fetus' who would lead those normal lives despite their disability.
Think of it as "innocent before proven guilty" or that judgments shouldn't be cast based on what MIGHT happen.
Pretty fucked up you'd care more about a non-sentient creature with less ability to sense pain or conceive of the world than a fish and unable to take care of itself more than you'd care about a fish.
I do care, but I also recognize that this is a system evolution set up.
At 11/27/13 12:33 PM, Earfetish wrote:At 11/27/13 12:30 PM, tyler2513 wrote: I'm pretty sure if an unborn fetus could talk, it would not be condemning itself.Maybe it would be pro-choice.
Maybe we should throw potential troubled children in isolated environments because of what the statistics say they might do before doing anything wrong.
Got to say, you're fairly fucked up for a pro-choice person though. You'd think the cut off date for an abortion would be when pain could begin to be registered or surely at least when it's been shown several times that prematurely born infants and fetus' who were born during botched abortions during the 20 - 24 week period have survived and lived normally.
Which is fairly pathetic when you think about it.
"I may have had a whole 5 months to make this decision, but I demand to be able to make during a time when it's been shown capable of living and feeling pain!"
Personally, it's their inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. Demanding the freedom to do whatever they want, but not wanting to deal the consequences if they screw up.
-It's not my fault I'm on drugs, it's society's.
-Why am I being punished with a child? I never thought having unprotected sex would cause this to happen.
-It's selfish to want to keep what you earn, but noble to demand someone else's money that I didn't work for.
That, and using their own personal stupidity as a justification for their positions:
-Because I'm too lazy and/or stupid to walk into a nearby target or walmart to pay 4.50 for contraception, so I demand other people pay for my completely voluntary, non-medically necessary sex life, which by the way, is none of your business (lol).
But my main reason for hating liberals is due to the fact that I'm anti-war, so imagine my surprise when I see all the liberals who used to protest under Bush (wonderfully so) all of a sudden turn to loving and excusing Obama's actions when he does all the same things Bush did (extending the Patriot Act, ect..)
At 11/8/13 08:58 PM, Light wrote:
I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).
You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.
After all, you don't jump out of the woodworks when the opposite claim is made over something we feel is "not fair" or "Chaotic."
"If God exists why does [insert bad thing here] happen?"
At 11/6/13 05:23 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:
Pray tell then please what you would call the Bible, the Torah and the Koran if not dogmatic theistic tomes? Tomes with set rules and set punishments for breaking those rules?
Doesn't every society have rules with punishments for breaking them?
Oh sure, you get your wishy-washy theists who pick and choose what they want to follow. Who pick things they find morally acceptable whilst ignoring the things they (quite rightly imho) find morally repugnant. "love thy neighbour"? Sure! "Sell my daughter into sexual slavery"? No thanks God! You can keep that one.
Don't atheists and Deists do the same thing? Dont you pick and choose what's acceptable and what's not which would be different from other atheists?
We have all the answers for you!" the priests and ministers shout from their pulpits.
Which is kind of funny considering what you're doing.
At 11/5/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
But during their time and the immediate time afterward they reap what they sow. The names of Stalin and Hitler now illicit strong hatred in most, whereas the names of most do not garner any negative reaction at all. In short, Stalin and Hitler are stains on humanity remembered now, two generations later. This is their punishment for their bad deeds. My life and my course in life, as well as those of my son, are my grandfathers' reward for living a generally good life.
But what do they care? They're dead.
I mean, if I could simply achieve everything I've ever wanted at the risk of everyone hating me, I'd do it. Why? Because I don't care what other people think. Since my opinion of humanity is already absurdly low.
And what will people care in a thousand years time?
I mean go even further and eventually our entire species will go extinct.
Which is fine by me.
It's like when anyone has every asked me what I think my funeral should be like, and I tell them "Do whatever you want. I'll be dead. I won't care."
At 11/5/13 11:22 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
My "obsession" in discussing god and the afterlife is directly proportional to the obsession of those who argue in their favor. If religious people would only keep their delusions private, I would have no cause to discuss it, and I could occupy myself with debating other topics.
I'm not talking about replying to religious people. I'm talking about the idiotic reaction that religious people and atheists have of feeling giddy about their side "winning", apparently unaware that the world won't get any better just because there are "more of us than them."
Point being, religion directly interferes with the ability of me as well as millions of others to live our short, impermanent lives to the fullest, and I won't stop pointing that out about religion until it stops doing it.
And there lies the problem. It's not religion or atheism. It's people. It's always just people.
At 11/5/13 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Most atheists who do this are doing it really for the same reason their theist counterparts do: They believe it is important to spread what they see as a vital truth that will help those around them to understand how the universe works and better their lives.
And I want them all to stop.
Your being religious or atheist doesn't inform me your opinion on things that actually matter like war or poverty.
I'm just not quite as annoyed when religious people run up to me out of the blue to tell me about their personal theological beliefs because they have some sort of ultimate end goal.
At 11/6/13 10:39 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:
You don't understand why nontheists who clearly see the tremendous damage theism is doing to our society don't want to do what they can to stop it? Every believer who looses their faith is one less adding to the idiocy that is religion.
And this is what you don't get. People are people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. People will always kill, steal, and lie regardless due to this little thing called human nature.
If you can blame religion for the crusades even when that particular religion expressly forbade those idiots from enacting that event, then you shouldn't bitch about religious people bringing up the many millions slaughtered by "atheistic" regimes (and vice versa to you religious people too).
Because there are many types of different people with varying beliefs and levels of beliefs even with the same overall structure, your religion (or lack of religious affiliation) doesn't mean shit to me because that doesn't inform me of what your beliefs are on things that actually matter.
You might get atheists who are in favor of wars, or against them.
You might have religious people who are all gungho about it too, but then you'll find many of them subscribing to the "Christian (in this case) Just War Theory" which is to only go to war as very last result.
Your personal beliefs in God or religion mean nothing.
What matters is whether or not you're a war-mongering, homophobic, prick.
At 11/5/13 03:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Why would you think that? Just because someone holds ideas and beliefs that didn't originate from the presumption of a caring universe or supernatural being doesn't mean they have any less reason to proselytize than someone whose ideas and beliefs did.
Because everything anyone ever does or says ultimately means absolutely nothing through time.
It's like when I hear people bitch about how "some good people" might end up in hell and that's "unfair"... which I find amusing coming from the people whose belief set means that everyone in the world, no matter how good or noble, gets the same end result of "nothingness" as Hitler and Stalin.
Point being. I don't understand why people who choose to live in the moment of the 1 shot they get at life which results in nothing would be more obsessed with discussing a "god" or "after life" than those who believe it amounts to "something."
At 11/4/13 05:03 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
I think what our friend is getting confused is what the idea of an amoral universe implies. The universe doesn't care one lick whether there are humans in it or not. That doesn't mean that WE shouldn't care. We are inherently moral beings living inside an amoral universe, meaning we have to look to ourselves to find meaning as the universe offers us none. For some reason, this causes some people's heads to explode.
Which is exactly why I hate it just a little more when atheists preach to me than when religious people do.
At least religious people have a reason (even if half baked) to do it; atheists on the other hand, have none.
At 10/23/13 02:44 PM, Feoric wrote:
Almost! The difference here is that the law is helping people, mainly poor people. Ick! "Conservative morality logic" (which is an oxymoron) essentially boils down to "freedom" + profits at the expense of others.
It's for your own good.
You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide.
Sounds the same to me.
At 10/22/13 11:27 PM, Feoric wrote:At 10/22/13 06:11 PM, Korriken wrote: The sick are flocking to get insurance. The healthy are not.Yes what a crazy world we live in where healthy people as of this second remain healthy for the rest of their lives and never have any need for health insurance while the sick remain sick forever while we healthy people pick up the tab.
Sounds like Conservative morality logic to me.
"That's immoral, so we'll force you what to do."
At 10/17/13 06:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Reading the idea that others aside from the Tea Party are mad that a deal was reached when the most recent post you showed is over a week old, and none of it has to do with supporting the Tea Party's crusade?
So, I repeat, exactly what does your link prove? It definitely doesn't prove the point you attempted to make with it. Care to try again.
The most recent post was Yesterday and it was in reference to the idea that if we don't raise the debt ceiling that we'd default even though even if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we'd still be able to make the interest payments.
So this thing about your reading comprehension... it's almost... magical
At 10/17/13 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 10/17/13 01:59 AM, Memorize wrote: Right...Your link proved what exactly?
That you're incapable of reading, apparently.
At 10/16/13 11:50 PM, Feoric wrote:At 10/16/13 11:16 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: aww so soon? I was hoping for public outrage maybe a riot or two (regardless of what side)Nobody is outraged that we funded the government and avoided a default except the Tea Party. They are too old and unhealthy to riot.
Must be fun being an addict.
At 10/16/13 01:54 PM, Feoric wrote:
Furloughed back pay will be included, thank god.
Nothing like a bunch of rich people stealing from their poorer counter parts.
At 10/16/13 11:07 AM, Feoric wrote:At 10/16/13 10:32 AM, Memorize wrote: Yes, that brink of financial calamity of a shutdownNo, a default, where 120 billion dollars worth of treasuries wouldn't get paid out tomorrow.
Must be fun being an addict.
At 10/15/13 11:11 PM, Feoric wrote:
Well it's not over yet! The Senate bill funds the government until January 15th 2014 and raises the debt ceiling enough to get us to February 7th. So, just in case you were disappointed in this being over, we have to do this all over again! Even though shutting down the government and bringing us to the brink of financial calamity has done severe damage to the Republican party, it remains to be seen if they will learn not to do this again. But it doesn't necessarily end there...who knows what last second surprises tomorrow will bring? Both the House and the Senate can act quickly if they want to, there is plenty of time for last minute brinkmanship.
Yes, that brink of financial calamity of a shutdown where 87% of the Government still operates and the Government hires more people to close down parks than when they were open.
Because obviously the poorer families in the private sector who are still struggling should have to continue footing the bill for their public sector counter parts who get paid more and receive more benefits, along with their yearly automatic pay raises.
Ha, wealthy assholes like you are funny. "We're all in this together... until we have to be in it with you."
At 10/2/13 08:00 PM, Feoric wrote:
You're not bringing anything new to the table here. All of this and more was explained in my previous post...
Exactly.
The difference is you don't consider them operating under a different set of rules as everyone else as an "exemption" if they operated under those bullshit exemptions in the first place.
It's like saying how it's not technically illegal for congress to engage in insider trading so the fact that it's illegal for everyone else isn't an "exemption" because it was never illegal for congress to begin with.
...which is why this part means you didn't read it. They wouldn't be paying like everyone else. The law forces them to go on the exchanges but they would be losing their subsidy even though they still have the same employer:
Exactly dumbass.
The exemption came in when they demanded back their "employer" subsidies which no one else is legally allowed to put forth for those insurance exchanges.
The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges."
Which no one else can do. That's an exemption.
Not to mention, it's also contrary to what the law they love and passed actually says.
There are no exemptions for giant corporations.
Because under some sort of bullshit logic, granting Corporations a 1 year delay and no one else doesn't count as an exemption.
