The Evils of Socialism Explained

[Jauronimo]

I'll eschew my usual observation that you're a total !@#$ing moron in favor of something more constructive, and potentially more entertaining:

 

Prove it.

Its common knowledge that welfare and not technological advancement in medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, inoculations, nutrition, heavy machinery and all the other comforts that make it so most of us don't have to perform back breaking labor in unsafe conditions to provide for our cholera, typhoid, and small pox ridden families, was responsible for our longer lifespans.

[OCinBuffalo]

What about Obama makes him a socialist? This WH didn't get my vote, but still, I want to be intellectually honest. Decidedly liberal? Yes. Socialist? No.

 

Please marry the rhetoric with the record and don't forget to factor in your Brady evidence.

Perhaps you should ask Matt Damon. After all, Obama went around and set some pretty....socialist expectations, for someone who isn't a socialist, and now Matt Damon is whining. IF Obama didn't set those socialist goals and make a big deal about it to get Hollywood $$, then why is Damon whining?

 

Or, we can look at this the other way: What if Obamacare was actually a good law? What if the stimulus had worked? What if those Global Warming emails didn't get leaked? What if most of what Obama has done worked/was seen as positive? What would be talking about right now? A payroll tax cut? Not hardly: a payroll tax increase? Yep. That and basically everything else in the book.

 

The only reason Obama isn't more of a socialist today is the inherent failure of socialism causing him to FAIL. This has nothing to do with where he was in his thinking 3 years ago, or, what he'd be doing to the country right now, if his socialist ideology hadn't been fully exposed already.

To say that welfare "fails entire families" is profoundly myopic.

Yeah, you're the one defending 60 years of FAIL, and political expediency, if not flat out bribing people/pandering...but I am being myopic? Please. This notion is rejected, properly, on it's face.

What is the articulated goal of welfare? Without looking at any federal policy definition, it's to provide financial assistance and a basic level of social support until the recipient can independently care for themselves or their family. You think that welfare fails in that regard?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you judge welfare by justaposing the huge federal expenditure with anecdotes about mothers having additional babies as frequently as they receive welfare checks.

 

That, sir, is myopic. There are more folks who use welfare as a bridge between poverty and self-sufficiency, and who generate an income so that they can subsidize the system that allowed for their resurgence.

Well, then you think wrong.

 

I am not the usual person saying the usual things that you have heard for the last 20 years, because I don't like black people. You wish. But, too bad for you, I am completely different, and I will crush you on this issue.

 

I am not arguing what you have heard before:

Difference 1: I care about the people on welfare, and I don't despise them. I want them to be treated as people, not as farm animals, who need to be fed and told where to move. Welfare, and all of this, comes from an LBJ, deep South sense of "we need to take care of these childrens, because they can't do for themselves". Now, you tell me who's being prejudiced.

Difference 2: I don't care who has what babies, that's none of my business. However, paying for them, if we have to, is, by definition, our business. I am just as horrified by forced abortion as I am horrified by the scene at Tops when a welfare mother has to hand over her papers, or whatever they are, and be embarrassed. Nothing good comes from either scenario. Do that to this mother enough times, and you debase her. You take away whatever humanity she has. Then, you dare wonder why she can't seem to keep her legs closed? Your program causes more bad behavior than it could ever possibly hope to mitigate. I don't want to pay for you to go on destroying people's self-worth. I don't want to pay for you to have complete control over somebody and psychologically regress them into childrens, there, LBJ. Christ, the Scarlet Letter of the Puritans has nothing on you and your pieces of paper.

Difference 3: As somebody who spent their entire K-12 experience observing the embarrassment of the school meals program, I can tell you: get rid of it. You aren't helping anybody. And, making a kid deal with admitting he can't pay, every day, for 9 months a year, is not "helping" him/her. It does far more damage to them for life, but, since they are farm animals, all they need is to be fed, right?

 

Get it? I could go on, but there's no way in hell you are at my level on this argument. Before I go on, I will give you the chance to get up here.

Is welfare a perfect system? Hardly. Are there plenty of folks who use welfare checks to get their nails done, or buy Everclear, or pay their Hummer payment? Sure. Did the system, as originally envisioned, likely contemplate people using welfare checks to buy Hummers? Probably not. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. Unfortunately, though, when those "exceptions" can be counted into the millions, it's difficult not to be skeptical. But to say that the system, as a whole, failed, is articulating a characterization on the strength of the minority circumstance and entirely an appeal to emotion.

This is babble. It doesn't fail because it is misused here and there. It fails when it is used for its intended purpose, as I have already described.

Thankfully, it's not 1935, and mini-States in Europe are not paralyzed by fear of international aggression.

 

Very good military analogy. I usually find flaws with logic. No complaints and I'm in agreement with your points above.

You have yet to find a real flaw in anything I have posted, ever. Even my troll stuff, where there were flaws, you didn't really hit any of it.

As much as the country likes order, when 25,000,000 feel that they have been completely debased and that there is an institutionalized effort to do so

This is what you are not getting. When? They already have been completely debased. Time for DC people to catch up to what is happening in the real world = What I have seen and heard from the people who are on welfare for the last 30 years. I assure you: they are debased.

, there will be bedlam.

There already is bedlam = an entire generation of inner city kids who think it's ok to flashrob a store. Now, where does that level of entitlement come from, if not, ENTITLEMENTS?

This is even distinct from segregation because with segregation there was a century long sociological trend to uproot the various symptoms of slavery beginning in the 1860s. It was a slow process, but a conspicuously changing one.

 

In the instance of welfare and food, and eating, and shelter, you're dealing with issues that implicate basic human survival. You think 30 million people will just sit around and not eat? Natural selection may punk a few mil, but what about the 20 million able-bodied, resourceful, strong, young, stallions who can't find a job and now have been told to fend for themselves? Before they had an interim option. Now the only response is: don't eat and !@#$ off. They will fend for themselves and if you think some theoretical concept of "order" will intervene, you must not understand what a !@#$ing sympathetic nervous system is.

 

You're talking about Leviathan state of nature ****. In the social compact, the government is obliged to provide for the general well-being of its folks. When that doesn't happen, the compact is broken and people return to their state of nature. People will respond like dogs trapped in a corner who has been abandoned and haven't eaten.

 

Cut welfare. It will be !@#$ing Gotham City.

Buddy, you are describing hypothetically, from your lifelong perch in the suburbs, exactly what city people already know to be true. And yet, you appear to have a slight grasp on the situation, but, you aren't interpreting it properly. Why am I not shocked?

 

You have your cause and effect mixed up, and, you are acting like its still 1965. We are playing way past all of this on a daily basis. It's time to update your understanding of what is actually happening. This is not 1980 and we are not talking about cutting welfare. I am, and perhaps when I am done with you in this thread, you will be: talking about creating the conditions where people can choose to be successful.

 

The massive flaw in your thinking is already conveniently in bold above: you appear to think that merely feeding the farm animals addresses their needs in totality. Perhaps it's time for some Glasser for you. Here: I'll save you the trouble of googling....Glasser summarized

 

 

Welfare, and most government social programs, are completely based on the need for survival, and go out of their way to crush the other needs human beings have.

 

Still think my position is based on some welfare queen assclownery? If you do, then you aren't paying attention.

Edited December 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

Perhaps you should ask Matt Damon. After all, Obama went around and set some pretty....socialist expectations, for someone who isn't a socialist, and now Matt Damon is whining. IF Obama didn't set those socialist goals and make a big deal about it to get Hollywood $$, then why is Damon whining?

 

Or, we can look at this the other way: What if Obamacare was actually a good law? What if the stimulus had worked? What if those Global Warming emails didn't get leaked? What if most of what Obama has done worked/was seen as positive? What would be talking about right now? A payroll tax cut? Not hardly: a payroll tax increase? Yep. That and basically everything else in the book.

 

The only reason Obama isn't more of a socialist today is the inherent failure of socialism causing him to FAIL. This has nothing to do with where he was in his thinking 3 years ago, or, what he'd be doing to the country right now, if his socialist ideology hadn't been fully exposed already.

 

I asked you to point out something demonstrable and politically significant to justify your claim that Obama is a socialist and you answer with Matt Damon. Then, you actually had the audacity to conclude in that strange way as if you had identified some universal truth.

 

That was a joke right? This is some hazing thing again.....right? Right? Your entire post is some kind of weird "gotcha" and you're just waiting to pounce? Because if not, your entire post, yes the entire thing, is one of the worst (or best, depending on your disposition) examples of deflectionary tactic that I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

 

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

 

Yeah, you're the one defending 60 years of FAIL, and political expediency, if not flat out bribing people/pandering...but I am being myopic? Please. This notion is rejected, properly, on it's face.

 

Well, then you think wrong.

 

I am not the usual person saying the usual things that you have heard for the last 20 years, because I don't like black people. You wish. But, too bad for you, I am completely different, and I will crush you on this issue.

 

I am not arguing what you have heard before:

Difference 1: I care about the people on welfare, and I don't despise them. I want them to be treated as people, not as farm animals, who need to be fed and told where to move. Welfare, and all of this, comes from an LBJ, deep South sense of "we need to take care of these childrens, because they can't do for themselves". Now, you tell me who's being prejudiced.

Difference 2: I don't care who has what babies, that's none of my business. However, paying for them, if we have to, is, by definition, our business. I am just as horrified by forced abortion as I am horrified by the scene at Tops when a welfare mother has to hand over her papers, or whatever they are, and be embarrassed. Nothing good comes from either scenario. Do that to this mother enough times, and you debase her. You take away whatever humanity she has. Then, you dare wonder why she can't seem to keep her legs closed? Your program causes more bad behavior than it could ever possibly hope to mitigate. I don't want to pay for you to go on destroying people's self-worth. I don't want to pay for you to have complete control over somebody and psychologically regress them into childrens, there, LBJ. Christ, the Scarlet Letter of the Puritans has nothing on you and your pieces of paper.

Difference 3: As somebody who spent their entire K-12 experience observing the embarrassment of the school meals program, I can tell you: get rid of it. You aren't helping anybody. And, making a kid deal with admitting he can't pay, every day, for 9 months a year, is not "helping" him/her. It does far more damage to them for life, but, since they are farm animals, all they need is to be fed, right?

 

Get it? I could go on, but there's no way in hell you are at my level on this argument. Before I go on, I will give you the chance to get up here.

 

Again, you're arguing with yourself. Read my original post. I didn't blindly encapsulate you within some constrained category. In fact I said "correct me if I'm wrong..." which effectively conditioned my subsequent analysis(concluding with "that, sir, is myopic"). That is what FAIR people and intellectually honest debaters do. I acknowledged that I could be incorrect, and asked for you to opine if that was the case because I didn't want to categorize you unnecessarily or unfairly.

 

You, in response, decided to debate a non-issue (see bolded and underlined point above) as if it was dispositive. Then you figuratively thrust your chest out in some victorious e-pose when the only thing you accomplished was to combatively answer my request for clarification. You're like the street racer revving the engine of your tricked out Chevy Cavalier triumphantly for all at the traffic light to behold....especially the guy in the Porsche 996 GT3...who you're confident that you're cooler than.

 

"On [your] level"? Do you believe the **** that you say? You just told me that Matt Damon is proof that Obama is a socialist and that the trial and tribulations of your school lunch program evidences welfare's failures.

 

Really brotha?

 

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

 

 

This is babble. It doesn't fail because it is misused here and there. It fails when it is used for its intended purpose, as I have already described.

 

You have yet to find a real flaw in anything I have posted, ever. Even my troll stuff, where there were flaws, you didn't really hit any of it.

 

I have so deconstructed your posts on occasion that you're left scrambling for an answer. Usually that is the point when you begin hurling insults. I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts. Go back and read our discussions. It's cry funny how profoundly I have disassembled you, the entirety of you, on occasion.

 

With that said, I have also learned things from you, and others here that I disagree with.

 

And my underlined point above, more than anything, underscores the difference between you and I. The funny thing is, I don't think you'll ever quite get it.

 

This is what you are not getting. When? They already have been completely debased. Time for DC people to catch up to what is happening in the real world = What I have seen and heard from the people who are on welfare for the last 30 years. I assure you: they are debased.

 

There already is bedlam = an entire generation of inner city kids who think it's ok to flashrob a store. Now, where does that level of entitlement come from, if not, ENTITLEMENTS?

 

Buddy, you are describing hypothetically, from your lifelong perch in the suburbs, exactly what city people already know to be true. And yet, you appear to have a slight grasp on the situation, but, you aren't interpreting it properly. Why am I not shocked?

 

You have your cause and effect mixed up, and, you are acting like its still 1965. We are playing way past all of this on a daily basis. It's time to update your understanding of what is actually happening. This is not 1980 and we are not talking about cutting welfare. I am, and perhaps when I am done with you in this thread, you will be: talking about creating the conditions where people can choose to be successful.

 

The massive flaw in your thinking is already conveniently in bold above: you appear to think that merely feeding the farm animals addresses their needs in totality. Perhaps it's time for some Glasser for you. Here: I'll save you the trouble of googling....Glasser summarized

 

 

Welfare, and most government social programs, are completely based on the need for survival, and go out of their way to crush the other needs human beings have.

 

Still think my position is based on some welfare queen assclownery? If you do, then you aren't paying attention.

 

1. You didn't answer a single question in my post.

 

2. You conveniently dismiss issues that you're not comfortable addressing in order to avoid analytical effort.

 

3. I don't think that your position is predicated on "welfare queen assclownery." I wasn't sure before from whence your position came; Thank you for clarifying.

 

4. You've responded to my post by hurling declarative statements and mis-characterizations as if they substitute for analysis. Please folks, read his post. The **** is unmistakable.

 

5. I will be watching "Bourne Supremacy" tonight and enjoying a "5 Guys" burger after a long week at work.

 

6. Comfortable perch in the suburbs? Now; yea...I'm doing REALLY well. Then; schiiiiiit...black face, poor family, from SE DC. End of story.

 

7. All that other schit notwithstanding...Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours brotha (and the entire Stadium Wall community)!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

I asked you to point out something demonstrable and politically significant to justify your claim that Obama is a socialist and you answer with Matt Damon. Then, you actually had the audacity to conclude in that strange way as if you had identified some universal truth.

 

That was a joke right? This is some hazing thing again.....right? Right? Your entire post is some kind of weird "gotcha" and you're just waiting to pounce? Because if not, your entire post, yes the entire thing, is one of the worst (or best, depending on your disposition) examples of deflectionary tactic that I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

 

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

 

 

 

Again, you're arguing with yourself. Read my original post. I didn't blindly encapsulate you within some constrained category. In fact I said "correct me if I'm wrong..." which effectively conditioned my subsequent analysis(concluding with "that, sir, is myopic"). That is what FAIR people and intellectually honest debaters do. I acknowledged that I could be incorrect, and asked for you to opine if that was the case because I didn't want to categorize you unnecessarily or unfairly.

 

You, in response, decided to debate a non-issue (see bolded and underlined point above) as if it was dispositive. Then you figuratively thrust your chest out in some victorious e-pose when the only thing you accomplished was to combatively answer my request for clarification. You're like the street racer revving the engine of your tricked out Chevy Cavalier triumphantly for all at the traffic light to behold....especially the guy in the Porsche 996 GT3...who you're confident that you're cooler than.

 

"On [your] level"? Do you believe the **** that you say? You just told me that Matt Damon is proof that Obama is a socialist and that the trial and tribulations of your school lunch program evidences welfare's failures.

 

Really brotha?

 

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

 

 

 

 

I have so deconstructed your posts on occasion that you're left scrambling for an answer. Usually that is the point when you begin hurling insults. I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts. Go back and read our discussions. It's cry funny how profoundly I have disassembled you, the entirety of you, on occasion.

 

With that said, I have also learned things from you, and others here that I disagree with.

 

And my underlined point above, more than anything, underscores the difference between you and I. The funny thing is, I don't think you'll ever quite get it.

 

 

 

1. You didn't answer a single question in my post.

 

2. You conveniently dismiss issues that you're not comfortable addressing in order to avoid analytical effort.

 

3. I don't think that your position is predicated on "welfare queen assclownery." I wasn't sure before from whence your position came; Thank you for clarifying.

 

4. You've responded to my post by hurling declarative statements and mis-characterizations as if they substitute for analysis. Please folks, read his post. The **** is unmistakable.

 

5. I will be watching "Bourne Supremacy" tonight and enjoying a "5 Guys" burger after a long week at work.

 

6. Comfortable perch in the suburbs? Now; yea...I'm doing REALLY well. Then; schiiiiiit...black face, poor family, from SE DC. End of story.

 

7. All that other schit notwithstanding...Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours brotha (and the entire Stadium Wall community)!

 

Your argument is specious, ignorant, and irrelevent. Everyone knows that an argument to Jason Bourne can only be overcome by a Chuck Norris reference.

 

 

And a black man (I assume) surviving and escaping SE...that doesn't impress me. You want to impress me? Survive SE DC for fifteen minutes as a white boy.

[OCinBuffalo]

I asked you to point out something demonstrable and politically significant to justify your claim that Obama is a socialist and you answer with Matt Damon. Then, you actually had the audacity to conclude in that strange way as if you had identified some universal truth.

 

That was a joke right? This is some hazing thing again.....right? Right? Your entire post is some kind of weird "gotcha" and you're just waiting to pounce? Because if not, your entire post, yes the entire thing, is one of the worst (or best, depending on your disposition) examples of deflectionary tactic that I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

 

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

Matt Damon, and his whining, is funny. So, yeah, it's a joke. However, the reason he is whining is clear: socialist expectations not being met. It's exceedingly difficult to say whether Obama, the man is a socialist, or, whether he was just pumping up the far left to get votes/money. We all know how much of a phony he is, so that makes it even more difficult. We can say many of his policies are socialist, or ended up that way. Again, hard to say whether by design or default.

 

The truth is, due to the giant wave in 2010, we can never truly know how much of a socialist Obama is, or would have been. For example: The Obamacare debacle was his fault, no matter how you slice it. If he's not a socialist, and doesn't personally agree with forcing people to buy something, then he should have LED the way on the legislation that bears HIS name. Instead, he let socialists(are you gonna tell me Pelosi isn't one now?) create a nightmare. So, is it him being a socialist, or an idiot?

 

I wonder, if Obama gets elected again, are you trying to tell us we won't see MORE of the same far-leftist...or, socialist....crapola? Or do you think Mr. Green-Shovel-Ready has learned his lesson?

Again, you're arguing with yourself. Read my original post. I didn't blindly encapsulate you within some constrained category. In fact I said "correct me if I'm wrong..." which effectively conditioned my subsequent analysis(concluding with "that, sir, is myopic"). That is what FAIR people and intellectually honest debaters do. I acknowledged that I could be incorrect, and asked for you to opine if that was the case because I didn't want to categorize you unnecessarily or unfairly.

 

You, in response, decided to debate a non-issue (see bolded and underlined point above) as if it was dispositive. Then you figuratively thrust your chest out in some victorious e-pose when the only thing you accomplished was to combatively answer my request for clarification. You're like the street racer revving the engine of your tricked out Chevy Cavalier triumphantly for all at the traffic light to behold....especially the guy in the Porsche 996 GT3...who you're confident that you're cooler than.

Who do you think you are? Mohammed Ali? "watch me dance, I'm sooo pretty". Buddy, you wrote what you wrote, and I hammered you for it. That's what happened. Now, own it, and move on.

 

Your entire screed attempted to attribute the nonsensical crap you hear from racists regarding welfare, to me, by telling me how I think. Don't want to get hammered next time? Don't make the assumption you know how I think. Simple as that. The rest is just you trying to talk your way out of what you assumed your way into.

"On [your] level"? Do you believe the **** that you say? You just told me that Matt Damon is proof that Obama is a socialist and that the trial and tribulations of your school lunch program evidences welfare's failures.

 

Really brotha?

We're part of the way through your post, and you still aren't at my level regarding this discussion welfare....so, what should I expect for the rest?

Either answer my original question, or just say you !@#$ed up and move on. Save all the fluff and other **** for someone else.

I did answer your question, albeit in a goofy way. This time around, I answered it in an undeniable, boring way.

I have so deconstructed your posts on occasion that you're left scrambling for an answer. Usually that is the point when you begin hurling insults. I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts. Go back and read our discussions. It's cry funny how profoundly I have disassembled you, the entirety of you, on occasion.

No, you really haven't. Mostly you just throw around a lot of logic lingo and pretend that saying "straw man" means you win. Essentially I have ignored you when you've done that, after all, why reinforce bad behavior?

 

Like right now: I have made a clear and convincing case that welfare, due to it's purposeful ignorance of the other 4 basic human needs, and over-dependence on survival alone not only minimizes the effectiveness of it's own effects, it also exacerbates the causes of the problems it is intended to solve.

 

And what are we likely to hear from you in return? Babblity blab, contrapositive straw man disassembledy fallacy blab.

With that said, I have also learned things from you, and others here that I disagree with.

 

And my underlined point above, more than anything, underscores the difference between you and I. The funny thing is, I don't think you'll ever quite get it.

If you disagree with me, then provide specifics. Tell me why my point, which is soundly based on BOTH widely accepted behavioral science theory, and my own real world observations, is wrong.

1. You didn't answer a single question in my post.

Sure I did, and I have, again. Specifically I laid out why welfare fails, specifically when it is used as intended. I also specifically addressed your "riots in the streets" warning, and called the bluff. Then, I backed up my personal observations, which are extensive, with theory that is widely accepted(Glasser) by a number of different disciplines, including my own. Buddy, you are the one failing to address any of this. So again spare me.

2. You conveniently dismiss issues that you're not comfortable addressing in order to avoid analytical effort.

IF I thought any of your blabity blab merited analytical thought, rest assured, I would have addressed it analytically. For example, from above, please define where "I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts" requires analytical thought to address. Specifically, since when does linear reasoning require analytics? Looks like you got caught in your own sea of blablity here.

3. I don't think that your position is predicated on "welfare queen assclownery." I wasn't sure before from whence your position came; Thank you for clarifying.

 

4. You've responded to my post by hurling declarative statements and mis-characterizations as if they substitute for analysis. Please folks, read his post. The **** is unmistakable.

 

5. I will be watching "Bourne Supremacy" tonight and enjoying a "5 Guys" burger after a long week at work.

And thank you for not addressing it. Is it because you can't? Or don't want to deal with it honestly?

 

What exactly have I mischaracterized? The theory is sound, it works, and all I have done is apply it properly to point out the flaws in the government/social conscience people's thinking. This sounds like more blabity, "I can't deal with a methodology being applied properly" blab.

 

yawn. irrelevant.

6. Comfortable perch in the suburbs? Now; yea...I'm doing REALLY well. Then; schiiiiiit...black face, poor family, from SE DC. End of story.

 

7. All that other schit notwithstanding...Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours brotha (and the entire Stadium Wall community)!

The only surprise here is how long it took for me to drag this out of you. I must be slipping, or, perhaps I felt some need to ease up on you.

 

Same to you, and to all my dysfunctional family members here at PPP!

Edited December 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

And a black man (I assume) surviving and escaping SE...that doesn't impress me. You want to impress me? Survive SE DC for fifteen minutes as a white boy.

 

Spoken like a true DMVer.

[Juror#8]

Matt Damon, and his whining, is funny. So, yeah, it's a joke. However, the reason he is whining is clear: socialist expectations not being met. It's exceedingly difficult to say whether Obama, the man is a socialist, or, whether he was just pumping up the far left to get votes/money. We all know how much of a phony he is, so that makes it even more difficult. We can say many of his policies are socialist, or ended up that way. Again, hard to say whether by design or default.

 

The truth is, due to the giant wave in 2010, we can never truly know how much of a socialist Obama is, or would have been. For example: The Obamacare debacle was his fault, no matter how you slice it. If he's not a socialist, and doesn't personally agree with forcing people to buy something, then he should have LED the way on the legislation that bears HIS name. Instead, he let socialists(are you gonna tell me Pelosi isn't one now?) create a nightmare. So, is it him being a socialist, or an idiot?

 

I wonder, if Obama gets elected again, are you trying to tell us we won't see MORE of the same far-leftist...or, socialist....crapola? Or do you think Mr. Green-Shovel-Ready has learned his lesson?

 

Here we go again. This guy never learns. Sigh...

 

You essentially spent a few minutes of your time saying nothing in the above paragraphs. I ask a simple question, and you can't dignify it with a response that can be taken seriously by any non-developmentally challenged adult.

 

I'll try to make this easy for you: Which of Obama's policies are socialist? Obamacare? Stimulus? Which? And why?

 

Most importantly...from an ideological standpoint, does advocacy of these programs characterize one as a socialist (as you suggested)?

 

Now I want you to be careful and think it through. You've already backtracked from your suggestion that *he* is a socialist. Try to get some firm footing, take a position, avoid equivocating, and take a !@#$ing stand.

 

 

Who do you think you are? Mohammed Ali? "watch me dance, I'm sooo pretty". Buddy, you wrote what you wrote, and I hammered you for it. That's what happened. Now, own it, and move on.

 

Your entire screed attempted to attribute the nonsensical crap you hear from racists regarding welfare, to me, by telling me how I think. Don't want to get hammered next time? Don't make the assumption you know how I think. Simple as that. The rest is just you trying to talk your way out of what you assumed your way into.

 

We're part of the way through your post, and you still aren't at my level regarding this discussion welfare....so, what should I expect for the rest?

 

You didn't "hammer" anything. I wish you would have. At least then I would have felt as if responding to you represented a semblance of challenge instead of constantly feeling like I'm doing you a favor and then having that feeling confirmed with your subsequent posts. You didn't "hammer;" you didn't even purposefully tap. You kinda nudged me....but in that sensitive way that a woman does a couple days before she is to menustrate and, overcome by hormonal shifts, wants a lay. I gave you a lay. A good one. I'll give you more. Just keep nudging.

 

For your edification - I asked you for clairification as to your assumptions on welfare (otherwise, please explain the "Correct me if I'm wrong" request). Absent clarification or mention to the contrary, and without the benefit of your contribution, I felt_____ way. You, consistent with your bastardization of facts and desire to argue with yourself, rebutted an ADMITTED presumption (which is fine) but did so as if you were arguing a dispositive point (see where I destroyed you on this before: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__40). Anyone, anyone, can re-read this and understand this patently simple arrangement.

 

If you feel such and such a way. Great. My VERY MUCH conditioned statement evaporates on the strength of the very condition itself that I, myself, imposed. Again, it's called intellectual fairness.

 

Oh, but you did some "hammerin" didn't you? *Teehee* Silly wabbit.

 

I did answer your question, albeit in a goofy way. This time around, I answered it in an undeniable, boring way.

 

No, you really haven't. Mostly you just throw around a lot of logic lingo and pretend that saying "straw man" means you win. Essentially I have ignored you when you've done that, after all, why reinforce bad behavior?

 

Post 64:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60'>http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60'>http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60

 

I've already addressed this in a previous thread (reproduced above). Here is my exact quote:

 

You must be used to kicking ass when arguing with 19 year old college students. The tactics there, won't work here.

Incidentally, they won't work next time you try either. It doesn't really matter if you try to diffuse my mention of your "straw men," "red herrings," etc by pre-emptively mentioning them in your post - as if the mention of them, by you, conclusively demonstrates that you don't employ those tactics.

 

You can say it over and over again. Doesn't change the fact that you employ straw men tactics. You're fond of changing the nature of the conversation or bastardizing an argument, and then arguing the point that you, yourself, created. I can point out instance, after, instance where you've done this. But then, anyone can read through the referenced post above or probably many of your posts previous to my arrival here and find such tactics employed by you.

 

You "ignore it" because you have no meaningful response. I quote your words (YOUR WORDS) in context, point out the fallacy, and then you usually shut up because you can't argue with yourself twice. But then you wait a few posts until the conversation has evolved, and point out the fact that you were called out for being fallacious, as if the act of pointing out logical fallacies is somehow a fallacy. How about this hotshot - address the outstanding accusations lodged against you of logical discord in myriad threads and posts, then when you've demonstrated that you haven't done what I've said you've done, I won't reference them because you will have proven them untrue.

 

Up to this point, when the weight of your bull **** was upon you, you've responded thusly:

 

[Paraphrasing] "This is just one big hazing. Lighten up."

 

See: Post #80

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60

 

Oh well, disco.

 

 

Like right now: I have made a clear and convincing case that welfare, due to it's purposeful ignorance of the other 4 basic human needs, and over-dependence on survival alone not only minimizes the effectiveness of it's own effects, it also exacerbates the causes of the problems it is intended to solve.

 

And what are we likely to hear from you in return? Babblity blab, contrapositive straw man disassembledy fallacy blab.

 

If you disagree with me, then provide specifics. Tell me why my point, which is soundly based on BOTH widely accepted behavioral science theory, and my own real world observations, is wrong.

 

"Clear and convincing" my ass. You offered an opinion. I can respect that you've opined. But you, sir, don't have a monopoly on "right." The reader determines whose position is more convincing.

 

Apropos:

 

Nothing that you've said addresses one incontrovertable economic reality: there are not enough jobs for the skilled, educated, and experienced workers - those who *typically* find the job search easier. There are considerably less jobs than job seekers (http://stateofworkingamerica.org/great-recession/the-job-shortage/). Apropos, skilled labor force are flocking to unskilled jobs en masse because of the dearth of opportunities in their industry of choice( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_10/b4218014902482.htm)

 

That trend filters downhill and ultimately impacts the profoundly unskilled who find themselves in dogged competition with those more qualified for opportunities in the most modest of employment areas.

 

So your thesis above conspicuously misses a fundamental point. And in your effort to ascribe psychological traits to the down-trodden and construe "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" in the most liberal way possible, you miss a basic truism that is required for people to even have a psychology to analyze, a morale to esteem, and a "need" to fulfill:

 

They have to eat.

 

And that very necessary "need" is not going to be fulfilled within the constraints of the current economic atmosphere. Because there are not enough jobs to to allow people to be self-sufficient in this current economic context. So even if everyone wanted to be self-sufficient and independent, and get their localized manifest destiny on, they would be punked by eligible spaces with which to be resourceful and accomplish that. It's like life's fun little game of musical chairs.

 

So what now? If there are NO jobs for them to be able to fulfill their "4 other basic human needs," and according to you welfare shouldn't be an option in the interim(for the reasons you've expressed), what's the end game and how do they eat?

 

Your thesis entirely misses this issue. It doesn't even feign acknowledgement of it. That is one of the reasons that you can't be taken seriously. You waxed poetically about your command of a subject matter that you couldn't even pretend to understand the nuances of. I couldn't even yell to you that you're not on my level because you wouldn't hear me from the shithole beneath me that you're residing in.

 

So what now?

 

There HAS TO BE an interim sustenance strategy because this country doesn't have a job economy where there are enough opportunities for everyone to work, be fruitful, and add value - even if everyone wanted to work, be fruitful, and add value. There will always be people left out of the equation - notwithstanding their individual effort or initiative.

 

That fact right there decks your thesis and causes it to fall flat on its face.

 

In reading your point a third time you seem to be suggesting that people should prioritize some nebulous concept of "self worth," or some other "need" over basic survival.

 

So they should starve in their efforts not to starve with dignity, and panache?

 

Interesting analysis. A bit self-defeating; but then again it was contrived by you - so it doesn't come as a surprise.

 

The second point, which I haven't even begun discussing yet, is what about those who are entirely unable to work due to incapacity, handicap, developmental issues, psychological restrictions, etc? What about them?

 

Should they make their legs walk? Should they take their two fingers and extingusish the synapse misfire so that they can stop thinking that their Big Mac is trying to have a conversation with them about the McFlurry being the real D.B. Cooper?

 

All in an effort to be self-sufficient and not over-emphasize survival by relying on a public welfare system?

 

By the way - you keep talking about how you're "on a different level" with respect to this argument. You're so behind and out-of-touch that you're becoming pathetic to read. A debased, hungry, homeless gentleman would absolutely circumcise you in this debate on the merits because at least he'd have effect on his side whereas you have absolutely nothing.

 

You're argument is weak, enfeebled, attenuated, crippled and sad. It really does suck. Like "schit sandwich" sucks.

 

Edit: It's now a few hours later and I had to return to this (it's now 2:30 D.C. time) to mention again the ridiculousness of your term: "over-dependence on survival." What the !@#$ are you thinking?!?!?

 

Do you not understand that that concept, with respect to self worth and human condition, is INHERENTLY SELF-DEFEATING??? Wow man. I almost considered erasing my entire post, quoting your sentence, bolding it, and just responding with the most innane smiley that I could find.

 

That would make the point just fine.

 

"Over-dependence on survival." Oh schit.

 

 

Sure I did, and I have, again. Specifically I laid out why welfare fails, specifically when it is used as intended. I also specifically addressed your "riots in the streets" warning, and called the bluff. Then, I backed up my personal observations, which are extensive, with theory that is widely accepted(Glasser) by a number of different disciplines, including my own. Buddy, you are the one failing to address any of this. So again spare me.

 

IF I thought any of your blabity blab merited analytical thought, rest assured, I would have addressed it analytically. For example, from above, please define where "I have found flaw, after flaw, after logical fallacy, after analytical incongruity, after non-linear reasoning...with your posts" requires analytical thought to address. Specifically, since when does linear reasoning require analytics? Looks like you got caught in your own sea of blablity here.

 

And thank you for not addressing it. Is it because you can't? Or don't want to deal with it honestly?

 

What exactly have I mischaracterized? The theory is sound, it works, and all I have done is apply it properly to point out the flaws in the government/social conscience people's thinking. This sounds like more blabity, "I can't deal with a methodology being applied properly" blab.

 

yawn. irrelevant.

 

I NEVER said that I indentified "flaw after flaw..." in THIS thread or anything "from above." Please follow this closely now: You said in post# 82 that [paraphrasing] " have failed to find a flaw in anything that [you] have EVER posted." I then responded that I have identified "flaw, after flaw, after incongruity..." etc. Your use of "EVER" is decidedly universal and applicable to all of our conversations in all of our threads.

 

Yet now, you've distilled my available samples down to this thread ("from above").

 

That is what I'm talking about with you. The little switches, bastardizations, subtleties, and fallacies that you employ in an effort to manipulate the flow and direction of conversation. DO YOU SEE IT? ANYONE ELSE READING THIS? Read this and the bolded paragraph above over, and over, and over again because OCinBuffalo WILL do it again. And I'll reference it AGAIN.

 

You are VERY intellectually dishonest. But you're not good at it because you're also so VERY transparent in your dishonesty. The above is yet ANOTHER example of it.

 

Here are some examples of my identifying "flaw after flaw" in your reasoning:

 

Post #71:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60

 

Read it, and enjoy. I'm looking forward to another of your contorted replies that is long on volume and short of substance.

 

The only surprise here is how long it took for me to drag this out of you. I must be slipping, or, perhaps I felt some need to ease up on you.

 

Huh? Drew what out?

 

So I've responded to all your contortions and mischaracterizations, and assertions, and opinions.

 

You want to try again? I know you can do better.

 

 

OCin Buffalo likely response (paraphrased):

 

1. "Babble babble. If I use 'straw man' enough I can transition it from his sword to my shield. Then I can straw man with impunity because he'll be intimidated to call me out on it because I prospectively referenced it."

 

2. "My command of the subject matter is so great that I'm not even going to address your points about welfare because it is at odds with my 'welfare greatness'."

 

3. "Babble, babble. Provide some facts."

 

Translation: "I don't want to read the points that you made about jobs for job seekers, or scan the metrics, or address your contention that my 'welfare greatness' point about human dignity being shattered or other arguably more important needs being sacrificed in an effort to simply survive is paradoxical and inherently self-defeating.

 

I'll just keep asking you for the same thing that you answered already and telling you that you didn't address the point in hopes that people read it and believe it."

 

4. "My command of the subject matter is fantastic and it should be because I knew people who grew up in the rough streets of Orange County and had to survive everyday on school lunch vouchers."

 

5. "Babble Babble, blah, blah, straw man, logic games, you suck."

 

I may have stated it a bit more eloquently then you would have but, if you want, I can just reply to the above (since that will undoubtedly be your contribution), and save you the time?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

Here we go again. This guy never learns. Sigh...

 

You essentially spent a few minutes of your time saying nothing in the above paragraphs. I ask a simple question, and you can't dignify it with a response that can be taken seriously by any non-developmentally challenged adult.

 

I'll try to make this easy for you: Which of Obama's policies are socialist? Obamacare? Stimulus? Which? And why?

 

Most importantly...from an ideological standpoint, does advocacy of these programs characterize one as a socialist (as you suggested)?

 

Now I want you to be careful and think it through. You've already backtracked from your suggestion that *he* is a socialist. Try to get some firm footing, take a position, avoid equivocating, and take a !@#$ing stand.

 

 

 

 

You didn't "hammer" anything. I wish you would have. At least then I would have felt as if responding to you represented a semblance of challenge instead of constantly feeling like I'm doing you a favor and then having that feeling confirmed with your subsequent posts. You didn't "hammer;" you didn't even purposefully tap. You kinda nudged me....but in that sensitive way that a woman does a couple days before she is to menustrate and, overcome by hormonal shifts, wants a lay. I gave you a lay. A good one. I'll give you more. Just keep nudging.

 

For your edification - I asked you for clairification as to your assumptions on welfare (otherwise, please explain the "Correct me if I'm wrong" request). Absent clarification or mention to the contrary, and without the benefit of your contribution, I felt_____ way. You, consistent with your bastardization of facts and desire to argue with yourself, rebutted an ADMITTED presumption (which is fine) but did so as if you were arguing a dispositive point (see where I destroyed you on this before: http://forums.twobil...on/page__st__40). Anyone, anyone, can re-read this and understand this patently simple arrangement.

 

If you feel such and such a way. Great. My VERY MUCH conditioned statement evaporates on the strength of the very condition itself that I, myself, imposed. Again, it's called intellectual fairness.

 

Oh, but you did some "hammerin" didn't you? *Teehee* Silly wabbit.

 

 

 

Post 64:

 

http://forums.twobil...on/page__st__60

 

I've already addressed this in a previous thread (reproduced above). Here is my exact quote:

 

 

 

You can say it over and over again. Doesn't change the fact that you employ straw men tactics. You're fond of changing the nature of the conversation or bastardizing an argument, and then arguing the point that you, yourself, created. I can point out instance, after, instance where you've done this. But then, anyone can read through the referenced post above or probably many of your posts previous to my arrival here and find such tactics employed by you.

 

You "ignore it" because you have no meaningful response. I quote your words (YOUR WORDS) in context, point out the fallacy, and then you usually shut up because you can't argue with yourself twice. But then you wait a few posts until the conversation has evolved, and point out the fact that you were called out for being fallacious, as if the act of pointing out logical fallacies is somehow a fallacy. How about this hotshot - address the outstanding accusations lodged against you of logical discord in myriad threads and posts, then when you've demonstrated that you haven't done what I've said you've done, I won't reference them because you will have proven them untrue.

 

Up to this point, when the weight of your bull **** was upon you, you've responded thusly:

 

[Paraphrasing] "This is just one big hazing. Lighten up."

 

See: Post #80

 

http://forums.twobil...on/page__st__60

 

Oh well, disco.

 

 

 

 

"Clear and convincing" my ass. You offered an opinion. I can respect that you've opined. But you, sir, don't have a monopoly on "right." The reader determines whose position is more convincing.

 

Apropos:

 

Nothing that you've said addresses one incontrovertable economic reality: there are not enough jobs for the skilled, educated, and experienced workers - those who *typically* find the job search easier. There are considerably less jobs than job seekers (http://stateofworkin...e-job-shortage/). Apropos, skilled labor force are flocking to unskilled jobs en masse because of the dearth of opportunities in their industry of choice( http://www.businessw...18014902482.htm)

 

That trend filters downhill and ultimately impacts the profoundly unskilled who find themselves in dogged competition with those more qualified for opportunities in the most modest of employment areas.

 

So your thesis above conspicuously misses a fundamental point. And in your effort to ascribe psychological traits to the down-trodden and construe "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" in the most liberal way possible, you miss a basic truism that is required for people to even have a psychology to analyze, a morale to esteem, and a "need" to fulfill:

 

They have to eat.

 

And that very necessary "need" is not going to be fulfilled within the constraints of the current economic atmosphere. Because there are not enough jobs to to allow people to be self-sufficient in this current economic context. So even if everyone wanted to be self-sufficient and independent, and get their localized manifest destiny on, they would be punked by eligible spaces with which to be resourceful and accomplish that. It's like life's fun little game of musical chairs.

 

So what now? If there are NO jobs for them to be able to fulfill their "4 other basic human needs," and according to you welfare shouldn't be an option in the interim(for the reasons you've expressed), what's the end game and how do they eat?

 

Your thesis entirely misses this issue. It doesn't even feign acknowledgement of it. That is one of the reasons that you can't be taken seriously. You waxed poetically about your command of a subject matter that you couldn't even pretend to understand the nuances of. I couldn't even yell to you that you're not on my level because you wouldn't hear me from the shithole beneath me that you're residing in.

 

So what now?

 

There HAS TO BE an interim sustenance strategy because this country doesn't have a job economy where there are enough opportunities for everyone to work, be fruitful, and add value - even if everyone wanted to work, be fruitful, and add value. There will always be people left out of the equation - notwithstanding their individual effort or initiative.

 

That fact right there decks your thesis and causes it to fall flat on its face.

 

In reading your point a third time you seem to be suggesting that people should prioritize some nebulous concept of "self worth," or some other "need" over basic survival.

 

So they should starve in their efforts not to starve with dignity, and panache?

 

Interesting analysis. A bit self-defeating; but then again it was contrived by you - so it doesn't come as a surprise.

 

The second point, which I haven't even begun discussing yet, is what about those who are entirely unable to work due to incapacity, handicap, developmental issues, psychological restrictions, etc? What about them?

 

Should they make their legs walk? Should they take their two fingers and extingusish the synapse misfire so that they can stop thinking that their Big Mac is trying to have a conversation with them about the McFlurry being the real D.B. Cooper?

 

All in an effort to be self-sufficient and not over-emphasize survival by relying on a public welfare system?

 

By the way - you keep talking about how you're "on a different level" with respect to this argument. You're so behind and out-of-touch that you're becoming pathetic to read. A debased, hungry, homeless gentleman would absolutely circumcise you in this debate on the merits because at least he'd have effect on his side whereas you have absolutely nothing.

 

You're argument is weak, enfeebled, attenuated, crippled and sad. It really does suck. Like "schit sandwich" sucks.

 

Edit: It's now a few hours later and I had to return to this (it's now 2:30 D.C. time) to mention again the ridiculousness of your term: "over-dependence on survival." What the !@#$ are you thinking?!?!?

 

Do you not understand that that concept, with respect to self worth and human condition, is INHERENTLY SELF-DEFEATING??? Wow man. I almost considered erasing my entire post, quoting your sentence, bolding it, and just responding with the most innane smiley that I could find.

 

That would make the point just fine.

 

"Over-dependence on survival." Oh schit.

 

 

 

 

I NEVER said that I indentified "flaw after flaw..." in THIS thread or anything "from above." Please follow this closely now: You said in post# 82 that [paraphrasing] " have failed to find a flaw in anything that [you] have EVER posted." I then responded that I have identified "flaw, after flaw, after incongruity..." etc. Your use of "EVER" is decidedly universal and applicable to all of our conversations in all of our threads.

 

Yet now, you've distilled my available samples down to this thread ("from above").

 

That is what I'm talking about with you. The little switches, bastardizations, subtleties, and fallacies that you employ in an effort to manipulate the flow and direction of conversation. DO YOU SEE IT? ANYONE ELSE READING THIS? Read this and the bolded paragraph above over, and over, and over again because OCinBuffalo WILL do it again. And I'll reference it AGAIN.

 

You are VERY intellectually dishonest. But you're not good at it because you're also so VERY transparent in your dishonesty. The above is yet ANOTHER example of it.

 

Here are some examples of my identifying "flaw after flaw" in your reasoning:

 

Post #71:

 

http://forums.twobil...on/page__st__60

 

Read it, and enjoy. I'm looking forward to another of your contorted replies that is long on volume and short of substance.

 

 

 

Huh? Drew what out?

 

So I've responded to all your contortions and mischaracterizations, and assertions, and opinions.

 

You want to try again? I know you can do better.

 

 

OCin Buffalo likely response (paraphrased):

 

1. "Babble babble. If I use 'straw man' enough I can transition it from his sword to my shield. Then I can straw man with impunity because he'll be intimidated to call me out on it because I prospectively referenced it."

 

2. "My command of the subject matter is so great that I'm not even going to address your points about welfare because it is at odds with my 'welfare greatness'."

 

3. "Babble, babble. Provide some facts."

 

Translation: "I don't want to read the points that you made about jobs for job seekers, or scan the metrics, or address your contention that my 'welfare greatness' point about human dignity being shattered or other arguably more important needs being sacrificed in an effort to simply survive is paradoxical and inherently self-defeating.

 

I'll just keep asking you for the same thing that you answered already and telling you that you didn't address the point in hopes that people read it and believe it."

 

4. "My command of the subject matter is fantastic and it should be because I knew people who grew up in the rough streets of Orange County and had to survive everyday on school lunch vouchers."

 

5. "Babble Babble, blah, blah, straw man, logic games, you suck."

 

I may have stated it a bit more eloquently then you would have but, if you want, I can just reply to the above (since that will undoubtedly be your contribution), and save you the time?

The more backpedaling you have to do, the longer your posts get. You made a stupid assumption, and I called you on it. That's it. Stop trying to decorate that reality with BS sprinkles.

 

 

Buddy, Obama's admiration for European socialism is common knowledge. Do I also need to define the concept of gravity for you as well? Don't be ridiculous. Are you that dense that you can't see the ass-licking Obama, and many of his far-left colleagues, have been giving the European Socialists, and their "ideals" since 2005? When I was in Center City, 9/10 times when I would talk to the Dem consultants I knew, they would tell me the country was irretrievably moving left, on a grand scale, and that I would just have to get used to it.

 

There was no question in their minds as to whether they were socialists, or would be very soon. The only question was how far they would take it. Why would there be any questions in Barry's mind, as the leader of both these people, and the "transformation of America"?

 

The only way one can say Obama is not a socialist: by default. He didn't get to continue to do what he had been doing due to 2010, so we'll never know "how far they would take it". But, in 1.5 years of Obama, the American people, and especially independents, had seen enough.

 

Like I said, this discussion is ridiculous. The evidence clearly shows that either Obama is a socialist, by definition, or he's the worst sort of cynical fop, whose not even smart enough to realize he's no longer fooling anyone with his act. Pick one. There is 0 value in having an "intellectual" or "analytical" discussion, that attempts to deny this reality, or consists of you trying, poorly, to spin out of it.

 

"They have to eat" has been your answer for 60 years. So, can we expect that you will start working on the other 4 needs next year? Of course not. The year after? Has the last 60 years been the "interim"? So, does that make welfare a 180 year program? You know, beginning, middle and end? "interim"....ridiculous.

 

Will you EVER attend to this issue properly? Of course not. So, you want us to continue to support a program that causes more problems than it solves, will NEVER work, that you will NEVER conceive of properly, that you will NEVER be able to manager properly, and you will NEVER expand to cover the other 4 needs, and therefore cannot, by definition, EVER add REAL value....

 

...because "people have to eat"? While they've been eating, you've been busy destroying the humanity of entire extended families, and then wondering why none of these people have the life skills to cope...with life...moron.

 

Ridiculous

Edited December 26, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

The more backpedaling you have to do, the longer your posts get. You made a stupid assumption, and I called you on it. That's it. Stop trying to decorate that reality with BS sprinkles.

 

 

Buddy, Obama's admiration for European socialism is common knowledge. Do I also need to define the concept of gravity for you as well? Don't be ridiculous. Are you that dense that you can't see the ass-licking Obama, and many of his far-left colleagues, have been giving the European Socialists, and their "ideals" since 2005? When I was in Center City, 9/10 times when I would talk to the Dem consultants I knew, they would tell me the country was irretrievably moving left, on a grand scale, and that I would just have to get used to it.

 

There was no question in their minds as to whether they were socialists, or would be very soon. The only question was how far they would take it. Why would there be any questions in Barry's mind, as the leader of both these people, and the "transformation of America"?

 

The only way one can say Obama is not a socialist: by default. He didn't get to continue to do what he had been doing due to 2010, so we'll never know "how far they would take it". But, in 1.5 years of Obama, the American people, and especially independents, had seen enough.

 

Like I said, this discussion is ridiculous. The evidence clearly shows that either Obama is a socialist, by definition, or he's the worst sort of cynical fop, whose not even smart enough to realize he's no longer fooling anyone with his act. Pick one. There is 0 value in having an "intellectual" or "analytical" discussion, that attempts to deny this reality, or consists of you trying, poorly, to spin out of it.

 

"They have to eat" has been your answer for 60 years. So, can we expect that you will start working on the other 4 needs next year? Of course not. The year after? Has the last 60 years been the "interim"? So, does that make welfare a 180 year program? You know, beginning, middle and end? "interim"....ridiculous.

 

Will you EVER attend to this issue properly? Of course not. So, you want us to continue to support a program that causes more problems than it solves, will NEVER work, that you will NEVER conceive of properly, that you will NEVER be able to manager properly, and you will NEVER expand to cover the other 4 needs, and therefore cannot, by definition, EVER add REAL value....

 

...because "people have to eat"? While they've been eating, you've been busy destroying the humanity of entire extended families, and then wondering why none of these people have the life skills to cope...with life...moron.

 

Ridiculous

 

And you still don't answer any of the questions posed to you before. The bold print reeks of Fox News. You're screaming socialism again without telling us what is so socialist about him. Can you tell us what about his policies is socialist?

[3rdnlng]

And you still don't answer any of the questions posed to you before. The bold print reeks of Fox News. You're screaming socialism again without telling us what is so socialist about him. Can you tell us what about his policies is are socialistsocialistic?

 

Fixed.

 

Uh, "spread the wealth around". Desire to have universal healthcare. He's also just a terrible president thinking he can "rule" by fiat.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Fixed.

 

Uh, "spread the wealth around". Desire to have universal healthcare. He's also just a terrible president thinking he can "rule" by fiat.

 

way to move the goalposts and then answer a question that I didn't ask.

[Adam]

I really have to laugh at some of this stuff. The attempt to equate socialism to evil is downright ludicrous. It is an economic system with its plusses and minuses, just like any other system. Not to mention, that just like capitalism, it IS a major part of our economy. The United States is a beautiful melding of all economic theory, and is led by capitalism.

 

Problem is that everyone wants more of the pie for themselves (and understanably so, as that's how it works). Big business wants more than its fair share, the middle class wants more than its fair share and so does everyone else. As long as I make enough to get by, I will sit back and watch the chaos, probably never being smart enough to full understand it. I do understand that there is no evil in either system, just in those who exploit either system for their own gain.

[3rdnlng]

way to move the goalposts and then answer a question that I didn't ask.

 

 

Listen you stupid !@#$, I gave you two examples of his socialistic tendencies. If you can't hang, don't make the attempt.

[Juror#8]

The more backpedaling you have to do, the longer your posts get. You made a stupid assumption, and I called you on it. That's it. Stop trying to decorate that reality with BS sprinkles.

 

 

Buddy, Obama's admiration for European socialism is common knowledge. Do I also need to define the concept of gravity for you as well? Don't be ridiculous. Are you that dense that you can't see the ass-licking Obama, and many of his far-left colleagues, have been giving the European Socialists, and their "ideals" since 2005? When I was in Center City, 9/10 times when I would talk to the Dem consultants I knew, they would tell me the country was irretrievably moving left, on a grand scale, and that I would just have to get used to it.

 

There was no question in their minds as to whether they were socialists, or would be very soon. The only question was how far they would take it. Why would there be any questions in Barry's mind, as the leader of both these people, and the "transformation of America"?

 

The only way one can say Obama is not a socialist: by default. He didn't get to continue to do what he had been doing due to 2010, so we'll never know "how far they would take it". But, in 1.5 years of Obama, the American people, and especially independents, had seen enough.

 

Like I said, this discussion is ridiculous. The evidence clearly shows that either Obama is a socialist, by definition, or he's the worst sort of cynical fop, whose not even smart enough to realize he's no longer fooling anyone with his act. Pick one. There is 0 value in having an "intellectual" or "analytical" discussion, that attempts to deny this reality, or consists of you trying, poorly, to spin out of it.

 

You're funny with this "the evidence clearly shows" bs. You've found some term, tried to make it a pejorative, and are now throwing it around as if it's an exact science.

 

I ask you for a simple !@#$ing thing...one simple request, and you can't oblige that with an equally straight-forward response.

 

You respond back with all this bull **** about "the whole world knows that what's his face is such and such and if you don't get it...balh...blah...blah...." That's such a weasel-ass, yellow-bellied response. You make us conservatives look bad. You have to be able to articulate your position, be ready to support it, and not just make declarative statements that rely on the strength of................................the declarative statement. I would love to see you debate one of those sweetie pies in DuPont Circle. They would eat you alive intellectually and then ask you out on a date.

 

At least I now know one thing about you; you have no !@#$ing nuts - like il Castrato. Sing for me castrati.

 

I'll leave it there. You're wasting my time. You won't answer my questions and you keep going with this schtik. Get some sleep.

 

 

"They have to eat" has been your answer for 60 years. So, can we expect that you will start working on the other 4 needs next year? Of course not. The year after? Has the last 60 years been the "interim"? So, does that make welfare a 180 year program? You know, beginning, middle and end? "interim"....ridiculous.

 

Will you EVER attend to this issue properly? Of course not. So, you want us to continue to support a program that causes more problems than it solves, will NEVER work, that you will NEVER conceive of properly, that you will NEVER be able to manager properly, and you will NEVER expand to cover the other 4 needs, and therefore cannot, by definition, EVER add REAL value....

 

...because "people have to eat"? While they've been eating, you've been busy destroying the humanity of entire extended families, and then wondering why none of these people have the life skills to cope...with life...moron.

 

Ridiculous

 

I don't expect you to support to schit. The only thing that I hoped that you would do was debate honestly the points that I've already raised in response to your regurgitated mess above.

 

"Destroying the humanity of entire extended families...," really? Did you get this schit from the Hindenburg narrative?

 

You can't deal with the paradox created by your assertion that the abjectly impoverished, the enfeebled, the handicapped, and the psychologically incapable should avoid welfare (and in that context taxpayer subsidized food, water, shelter) in order to promote dignity and self-worth even if they kick the bucket as a result.

 

So in order to avoid the paradox, you attenuate your contention by discussing the effects on the !@#$ing extended families.

 

Oh wow. That's !@#$ing brilliant castrato.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Listen you stupid !@#$, I gave you two examples of his socialistic tendencies. If you can't hang, don't make the attempt.

 

Have you every tried a post without an empty insult? You really need to talk to your doctor about that Valium.

 

But lets humor you a little.

 

"ruled by fiat'? Where has this happened?

"spreading the wealth around" is important for every healthy economy. When the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of just a few we all suffer.

 

His desire for universal heath care may be socialistic but that doesn't make him an overall socialist. So now how is he a socialist?

[DC Tom]

"ruled by fiat'? Where has this happened?

 

The GM bankruptcy.

[3rdnlng]

Have you every tried a post without an empty insult? You really need to talk to your doctor about that Valium.

 

But lets humor you a little.

 

"ruled by fiat'? Where has this happened? "spreading the wealth around" is important for every healthy economy. When the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of just a few we all suffer.

 

His desire for universal heath care may be socialistic but that doesn't make him an overall socialist. So now how is he a socialist?

 

 

His Czar approach for one and allowing the EPA for example to just make up new regs when he knows he could never get a similar law passed.

 

My insult wasn't empty, it was heartfelt. His definition of "spreading the wealth around" is taking from one group and giving to another. That's socialistic.

[DC Tom]

His Czar approach for one and allowing the EPA for example to just make up new regs when he knows he could never get a similar law passed.

 

My insult wasn't empty, it was heartfelt. His definition of "spreading the wealth around" is taking from one group and giving to another. That's socialistic.

 

Technically it's communistic. "Socialistic" is central government control of the means of economic output and distribution.

 

In other words, government-run health care is socialistic. But a bill of attainder to levy a "windfall tax" to punish people who make "too much" money, or ass-!@#$ing GM's bondholders to give a sweetheart deal to the UAW...those are communistic.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Technically it's communistic. "Socialistic" is central government control of the means of economic output and distribution.

 

In other words, government-run health care is socialistic. But a bill of attainder to levy a "windfall tax" to punish people who make "too much" money, or ass-!@#$ing GM's bondholders to give a sweetheart deal to the UAW...those are communistic.

 

Ass-!@#$ing the bond holders is what corporations do all the time. Communistic is more along the lines of the government owns the car company and force you to buy their product. Even if the government owns a large portion of the stock in GM we still are not forced to buy a GM car.

[DC Tom]

Ass-!@#$ing the bond holders is what corporations do all the time. Communistic is more along the lines of the government owns the car company and force you to buy their product. Even if the government owns a large portion of the stock in GM we still are not forced to buy a GM car.

 

You might actually be too stupid to post on this board.