Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

You wrote that the govrmt. interfering is totalitarian, and destructive to liberty. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin say the exact same thing. You put yourself there, and I didn't imply that you agree with the other things they say.


TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

It's important because the opposition to FDR, Obama and govrmt. programs labels that as socialism.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

ANGRY:

I want to find out where you stand, because a lot of your points appear to be Libertarian: to the right of Neo-Cons.

TAL