10 people, ages 8-21, shot dead in Mexico

Topspin sent me an IM and here's what he had to say:

"fuck you teabagger, I'm done with white trash anti education fuck's like you"

What's absolutely amusing though, is the label he put on the IM.

Anyone care to guess what he tried to say??









Wait for it













The title was "AsswHipe"
The focus on the included "H", was my addition.

:yermom:


:rofl:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
The majority versus minority thing works fine with me. I agree the majority should not be disregarded for the minority, thus the healthcare parallel.

Calling it stupid doesn't do anything other than underscore you're a Mod Bully.

Color me surprised....:palm:
Click to expand...


Awwwwwww....is the mean ol bully picking on the poor widdle skank?

Boo...Hoo...Hoo!
 
RStringfield said:
Health care is a separate issue. Do you suggest we deny government health care to anyone that smokes cigarettes, drinks or does too many prescription pills?
Click to expand...
Ideally that would be great, but it's not politically realistic right? With NEW things to legalize it is plausibly politically possible.

The Dem "healthcare reform" moves us a step away from that with forcing insurance companies to have to insure you regardless of what you have done to yourself. You know that bill that you were largely silent on with the exception of channeling your inner blackflag and targeting instead some obscure Republican like Scalia?
 
KingCondanomation said:
I don't shit on freedom ever, I merely ask that self-responsibility goes hand in hand with it.

We spend $2.x trillion per year in healthcare, and smoking tobacco costs tens of billions in direct costs (e.g. emphysema, lung cancer, doctor's visits, etc...) if not hundreds of billions per year in indirect health costs (e.g. heart disease, other cancer, etc...).
Given that pot has a higher tar content, I don't see why the health costs would not be at least in the same market with the same use.
No I don't have stats and can largely only estimate because there aren't many stats able to be done on something illegal. Hence why I said you COULD well be right.

All I am saying topper is that if you really, REALLY want it legalized then support less government on healthcare and you will have less opposition, REGARDLESS of whether you are right or wrong.
Click to expand...


Then I assume you would have no problem denying healthcare to someone who knowingly abused a legal controlled substance like Oxycontin?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Then I assume you would have no problem denying healthcare to someone who knowingly abused a legal controlled substance like Oxycontin?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't deny anyone healthcare ever, I would only ask that we do not pay for their choices. They can still buy healthcare or use whatever private healthcare insurance that will cover that.
 
I'm glad I see yurt ant the Zappa master fustrated with usatool. It reinforces my decision to add him to the GED ignore pool.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Ideally that would be great, but it's not politically realistic right? With NEW things to legalize it is plausibly politically possible.
Click to expand...

It would be horrible. The government should not use health care as a tool to control. I don't see why you would think that a good thing.

KingCondanomation said:
The Dem "healthcare reform" moves us a step away from that with forcing insurance companies to have to insure you regardless of what you have done to yourself. You know that bill that you were largely silent on with the exception of channeling your inner blackflag and targeting instead some obscure Republican like Scalia?
Click to expand...

Scalia's and other repubs, who give some half-assed defense of liberty are as bad as those making a full assault on liberty. The rationalization he uses to maintain insane drug war policies sets precedents for other attacks on liberty.
 
KingCondanomation said:
It would help but I think 90% of the cocaine coming in, comes from Mexico and I believe they supply a lot of other drugs like meth.

I am ok with legalizing any drugs so long as those who use agree to give up any government healthcare. You want freedom, you have to take the responsibility along with it.
Click to expand...
And thus the insidious nature of Nationalized Health Care bears its ugly head.

Things you'll hear in the future.

1. I don't care if you want to eat salt, just so long as you give up any right to Government Health Care. (Ignoring that you are now required to purchase that care and if you don't the IRS is coming.)

2. I don't care if you want to ride your bicycle without a helmet, so long as you give up any right...

3. I don't care if you want to drink alcohol, so long as you give up...

4. I don't care if you don't exercise, so long as you give up...
 
Remember the tube when Winston was called out for not exercising hard enough? Yeah... we've got ourselves a real winner, we can use this bat to hit whatever we want!
 
better comedy than SNL, the fact fuckers trolling on the internet what they are going to demand of others. ROFL
 
RStringfield said:
It would be horrible. The government should not use health care as a tool to control. I don't see why you would think that a good thing.
Click to expand...
???
I am not proposing using healthcare, I am proposing cutting it. They are not controlling you anymore than me coming up to you and saying if you don't do what I want I will stop giving you this money from someone else.

RStringfield said:
Scalia's and other repubs, who give some half-assed defense of liberty are as bad as those making a full assault on liberty. The rationalization he uses to maintain insane drug war policies sets precedents for other attacks on liberty.
Click to expand...
I never said you didn't have a point, I'm just saying this is pretty much all you have said regarding a massive increase in government in healthcare.

This is what blackflag used to do, with being an economic Conservative but only criticizing Repubs and Conservatives.
Some day wars you don't like will end, including the drug war. But social welfare will never stop increasing.
The long term prospects of freedom to me depend a lot more on opposing that which is a longer term threat to it - it's just such an obvious reasoning I don't know why anyone would make their priorities any other way other than some pure pigheadedness in trying to look fair or shortsightedness in not realizing that you are not going to convince anyone to take on responsibility when you give them freedom along with freedom from consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top