HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.
Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.
LOLOL nanny-state, is that suppose to be an insult? You conservatives want government controlled of all 'moral' issues, like drug use, profanity and nudity on tv, etc, but when it actually comes to helping people and requires YOU to give up something, you won't.
Originally posted by: Hardcore
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.
Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.
LOLOL nanny-state, is that suppose to be an insult? You conservatives want government controlled of all 'moral' issues, like drug use, profanity and nudity on tv, etc, but when it actually comes to helping people and requires YOU to give up something, you won't.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
also, hardcore you look like an idiot
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.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
also, hardcore you look like an idiot
Originally posted by: Hardcore
I give up roughly 20% of my income to charities. How much do you contribute?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Hardcore
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.
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!
Originally posted by: Hardcore
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.
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!
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)
Socialized Sex = Comrade Sutra
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
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...
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you get plenty of free food in the military
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you get plenty of free food in the military
And its REALLY good too....
HAHAHAHAHA
Originally posted by: Queasy
Socialized food? So instead of a Whopper I'd get a Comrade Whopper with Comrade Fries and a Comrade Diet Coke?
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
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...
Wouldn't the same hold true for medicine?
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?
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Hardcore
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.
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!
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?
Originally posted by: Amused
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?
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Amused
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?
of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Hardcore
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.
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!
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?
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.