Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It is genuine bullshit. Nothing more.
Spending cut proposals
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
It is genuine bullshit. Nothing more.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Stop trying to push your religious beliefs on others, Bfoon!
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Yes, your god loves fascism and greed. The god of the principles of physics and the totality of everything.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bfgrn
New member
I will tell it the way I see it. If you don't like it, put me on ignore.
What superfreak and 'conservatives' are really saying with your bullshit 'services can be provided by the private sector/individual grants/philanthropy' is I am not my brother or sister's keeper...it is not my problem.
That is not how our founding fathers saw it. They created a government, not a corporation or private entity. As a matter of fact they did not trust private corporations.
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.
So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.
That sounds nothing like the corporations of today.
Abolish Corporate Personhood
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Another word that does not appear in the Constitution is 'non-profit corporation'. So that must mean they must not have wanted the government to fund non-profits either by your logic.
Also, you are 100% incorrect. It is not a question of my saying that 'I am not my brothers keeper'. As I stated, the aid and assistance can come from the private philanthropy and pro bono work as it had done in the past. To pretend that equates to doing nothing to help the less fortunate is simply a gross distortion on your part.
Bfgrn
New member
Then it is no longer a right, it is a 'privilege'. It may happen and it may NOT happen.
The problem with your solution is you will never know or CARE. All you care about is it get you off the hook so you can feel like you really are a human being...you're NOT.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Um... it is NOT a right. It is a service provided by a non-profit corporation that relies on donations to continue operations. That non-profit can seek funds and time donations from attorneys just like other non-profits that don't suck at the government tit.
All you care about is whether the federal government funds it. you want your masters to maintain control of the funding. You want the government to decide for us which non-profits we give our time and money to and which we do not. That is a decision that should be up to the individual.
You simply think your masters are the only ones capable of making the decision. That says a lot about you personally. It says that it is YOU who would not volunteer your time or money for such a cause unless forced to do so by your masters in DC.
You should think about that long and hard. For it is a very poor reflection on the person you are.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, seriously... it is not a right to have an attorney to help you with bankruptcy or abuse etc...
It is a non-profit running a great program. But pretending again that only the federal government is capable of funding the program is stupid. It is the same pathetic excuse the left gives every time one of their programs is in threat of being cut.
'why don't you care?.... no one will help these people if the government doesn't force people to help them'
That line of thought again reflects poorly on the views of the left. They know they wouldn't help these people so they assume no one would.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
also... I am hardly a 'right-winger'.
These program can scarcely meet the needs of their clients with government funding, a problem that is exacerbated when the economy is bad because they have more demand for their services and fewer contributions from private parties.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I know you think calling me a right winger makes you feel all warm and special inside, but I am conservative on economic issues. Moderate on social.
But to you, anyone that doesn't think the government should run every aspect of our lives is a right winger. Which only further demonstrates what a total loon you are.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There are thousands of ways we could help fund the different needs of the poor. Why not have government programs for all of them?
Contrary to what you seem to think, it is NOT the governments job to fund every aspect of the lives of the poor.
I know that things like this create the dependency on government that your masters desire, but it isn't right. You always assume that if the government stops funding something that the funding will never come from other sources.
Bfgrn
New member
Listen you little slime ball. ALL I care about and my only concern is for the human beings, the people that have a RIGHT to proper and competent representation in the justice system. A system that has a scurrilous history of justice for the privileged and injustice for the poor and black citizens in our country. THIS cut will only add to not remove my concerns.
But justice is not a tenet of conservatism, because your slime balls ALWAYS side with the big guy over the little guy, the wealthy over the poor. It's because even though most of you will never be rich, you have a Monica Lewinsky worship for them. You equate wealth with virtue.
The history of conservatism throughout the history of mankind is to build and support some form of an aristocracy.
Last edited:
Right. I'm a left-winger and you right smack dab in the center. I totally buy that shit man.
You are anti-abortion. You supported the War in Iraq. You voted for George W. Bush. Twice. You supported the Bush tax cuts. You are generally anti-taxes and anti-government spending. You support privatizing Social Security. You support less government regulation of health care and the health insurance industry. You support less government regulation generally. You support "tort reform."
Need I go on?
Because resources are scare and some things are more important than others.
I don't think that. I know it's easier to argue against caricatures, but let's get real.
Again, resources are scarce. If you want to pretend otherwise feel free, but it doesn't make your argument correct.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am pro-life. You can try to dehumanize the child all you want. Science is not on your side. Attempts in the past to dehumanize groups of humans deemed 'not worthy' of human rights have all come to the same conclusion in the end.
I stated the Iraq war was the wrong choice at the time and that we should have finished Afghanistan first. You supported the two guys who were sad enough prospects that they couldn't beat Bush.
I am not anti-taxes or anti-government spending, both are just your attempts to spin it into a 'u right wing'. I am all for taxes and government spending when done efficiently and with purposes that the federal government should undertake. So the 'u anti-taxes and anti-spending' is simply a straw man from you.
Yes, I support fixing Social Security and again I think privatization is better than the government using it as a personal piggy bank. Your spin is that privatization somehow means that every dollar has to go into the market. Which is yet another strawman from you.
Your attempt to describe my thoughts on government regulation are pathetic and in no way reflect how I feel. Just because I don't like the monstrosity created by the Dems doesn't equate to not wanting regulation on health care. Saying I don't want the government controlling 1/6th of our economy with health care is not equivalent to saying I don't want regulations on the health care or insurance industries. So again, yet another straw man from you.
As for regulation in general... again you create a straw man. I am all for regulation of industry. I think it is appropriate to protect the consumers. But to pretend that opposing some regulations means I am against regulations in general is simply absurd. You will find no stronger proponent to the return of Glass Steagall than myself. None.
Yes, I support tort reform.... a government REGULATION on the idiocy that goes on within the Democrats trial lawyer base that hurts this country. You cry about health care reform and then pretend defensive medicine and litigation aren't big components. All because your masters pumped the CBO with bad info which in turn created bad results. Garbage in... garbage out. Do tell us what the big drivers of costs are in health care if not litigation, medical malpractice premiums (you know, those things that are charged due to litigation), defensive medicine practices etc. Show us for once a study of the BILLS people receive. Break it down. Where are the charges coming from? But I know... you think it is just coincidence that the most litigious society on earth also has the highest per capita health care rates.
So yes... continue creating all the straw men you can. That is the only way you can label me a right winger in your crazy fantasy world.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes... as I said, you think the government should decide what is more important. Because if left up to the individuals, nothing important would be taken care of. Those resources you mention... if they weren't being TAKEN from the people, the PEOPLE would have them to spend.
Says the man who just created a handful of moronic caricatures in a vain attempt to paint me into the right wing.
I know it was an exaggeration to say everything. The point is, any time the government creates something that funds yet another aspect of the lives of the poor, it becomes permanent because the left will always shout 'you cold hearted people... how can you deny the poor this particular freebie?'
It never fucking stops. What is next? When do the poor take responsibility for themselves?
lol... speaking of caricatures... I never said resources weren't scarce during a recession. The point you fail to grasp is that those resources are more efficiently spent by the individuals. Rather than having the government tell us all what is most important (ie... who bribes them the most), some of us prefer they simply let us keep more of what we earn and let us choose what is important to us.
You again project your personal trait of not giving to charities/non-profits onto the populace. You pretend that if the government doesn't fund it. No one will. That is complete bullshit.