HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,519
- 20,142
- 146
Here's a clue, since you can't seem to find one:
I am not a political conservative. I oppose the Religious Right and everything it stands for. I oppose all morality laws, be they the religious morality proposed by the RR, or the social morality proposed by the socialist liberals.
I give up roughly 20% of my income to charities. How much do you contribute?
As for your Bush quote, I find it laughable that a liberal would try and use a quote like that against him... when the liberal agenda robs individuals of just as many, if not more freedoms than the conservative agenda.
I don't give up anything, but that's because i have a 14" penis. LOLOL easy to make claims on teh interweb isn't it?
Yes, my agenda is to rob everybody of freedom! You found me out.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,519
- 20,142
- 146
Originally posted by: Hardcore
I don't give up anything, but that's because i have a 14" penis. LOLOL easy to make claims on teh interweb isn't it?
Yes, my agenda is to rob everybody of freedom! You found me out.
It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.
Good luck with that penis.
JDub02
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2002
- 6,209
- 1
- 0
We already have socialized food. It's called WIC / food stamps, whatever.
If you's po', you's gets the gub'ment cheese.
My position is this, the government should stay far, far away from the charity business. Let the charities handle it. My church helps out alot of people with bills and food and is not forcefully taking money off of anyone.
If you's po', you's gets the gub'ment cheese.
My position is this, the government should stay far, far away from the charity business. Let the charities handle it. My church helps out alot of people with bills and food and is not forcefully taking money off of anyone.
Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?
I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,519
- 20,142
- 146
My Elite status has nothing to do with it.
I would figure someone who has been around as long as you have and posted as often as you have would have seen at least ONE of my political debates.
At any rate, my problem lies in you making wild assumptions, not in the fact that you don't already know my positions.
As for your GWB quote. It's still laughably hypocritical. You do realize that socialism requires the limitation of freedoms, right? That the "nanny-state" term you took as an insult is named that because the laws passed in it's name require the limitation of freedoms.
Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom
I could go on, but why?
deerslayer
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 10,153
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: Queasy
Socialized Sex = Comrade Sutra
Boooo!!!
There's too many econmic variables that would have to be changed for something like "social food growing" to be considered. Farmers have to make money to cover the costs of the fertilizer/seeds/equipment etc. Too much to figure out in a forum thread...
Dunno... i'm not talking about medicine on AT... liable to get my throat slashed... Besides, I'm a Commie Canadian...
however, I think basic medicines (not insurance, doctor visits, but medicine) should be one of those things things that shouldn't cost a potential arm and leg, becuase an R&D department has to pay an executive bigwig millions to sit and boast about his product. but that's another argument that i don't want to get into this thread...Sorry, but i just don't remembered what your political stance are. I may have a high post counts, but i visit this forum in spurts, and i certainly don't always read the political threads.
Well then why do you need an apology?
Hey, i'm all for socialism! I just put that in for the Bush fans.
With regards to the seatbelt law... driving is a privledge, not a right. When you drive without a seatbelt (I don't know why anyone would), you have to realize in the event of an accident the chance that your carcass gets thrown from the vehicle goes up and therefore you endanger the lives of everyone driving around you that has to swerve to not run you over. Therefore to minimize the chance you have of killing someone else, you are required to be fastened in your seat.
As someone from Canada told me in regards to socialized medicine, it is the most beneficial for people that cannot otherwise afford or get access to health care. The people that can, on the other hand, go across the border to the U.S. because the quality is better and you don't have to wait for months for a procedure.
I imagine it would be the same way with food. It would be most beneficial to the people that couldn't afford food to begin with, but those that have sufficient income would find themselves less than pleased with what was available from Nanny Sam.
I imagine it would be the same way with food. It would be most beneficial to the people that couldn't afford food to begin with, but those that have sufficient income would find themselves less than pleased with what was available from Nanny Sam.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
I support a junk food tax, and tax incentives to the vegetable industry.
I had an idea years back where nobody would have kitchens anymore, and there were restaurants. There were just "cafeterias" that fed everyone for free, and the food selection was regulated by a government department to ensure proper health. In fact I think I brought it up here. The problem is that looking at school food, you know the government has no clue about "health", and everyone is of different size and metabolism and nutritional needs so any kind of limit on portions and selection would end up unfair.
So I go back to my statement about junk food tax and vegetable incentives.
I had an idea years back where nobody would have kitchens anymore, and there were restaurants. There were just "cafeterias" that fed everyone for free, and the food selection was regulated by a government department to ensure proper health. In fact I think I brought it up here. The problem is that looking at school food, you know the government has no clue about "health", and everyone is of different size and metabolism and nutritional needs so any kind of limit on portions and selection would end up unfair.
So I go back to my statement about junk food tax and vegetable incentives.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,519
- 20,142
- 146
Oh BULLSH!T. Please post one, much less a pattern of incidents in which an unbelted driver injured another person through the direct result of not wearing a belt.
The MAIN reason for the law is nanny-state busybodism. The left feels that in it's elitism it can dictate what is best for you, and you are too stupid to take on increased risks with anything involving your own life or health. It is NO better than the RR trying to pass laws to protect your soul.
The secondary reason is socialism. If society has to pay for your mistakes, it will outlaw them every chance it gets.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter