Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   RAND PAUL: Yeah....the party is pretty much hosed with this impossible defunding Obamacare thing. Welp, it was both a pleasure and a nightmare knowing you people   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 484
    More: Interesting, humans, obamacare, Betsy McCaughey, Louise Slaughter, deem and pass, dual mandate, Cliff Stearns, RNC Chairman Michael Steele  
•       •       •

5413 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Sep 2013 at 9:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



484 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-23 06:06:45 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: You disagree with Alexander Hamilton, who predicted that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch.


No I don't. Nor Does Alexander Hamilton disagree with me. We haven't discussed Hamilton, and you have no idea what my opinion of his thinking is. We can't exactly ask him his opinion on our current judicial system as it has evolved over the last two hundred years. If nothing else, he was speaking before Judge Marshall. (He died two years before Marshall was on the court) At this point we are talking about entirely different things than Hamilton was.

And again, we weren't discussing civil liberties either:
We were discussing tax-funded expenditures that the government can provide that cannot be easily provided by the private sector, not evaluating "danger levels".
(But for the record, courts are FAR more likely to do lasting and serious damage to the lives of American businesses and American citizens than the US military.)


An American citizen or business is much less to be negatively impacted directly by the US military much less interact with it, but they will almost certainly interact directly with the judicial system. And as we all know well, going to court is going to cost you something, no matter what.

4tehsnowflakes: But as a military man, you have other concerns than civil liberties, it seems.


Dude. The conclusions. You are jumping to them. I am not a military man, nor have I said anything to suggest I was.

Did you have a response to the point that:

Also, if we bottom line it. We already HAVE that. Companies get sued all the time, and yet companies still break the law.
If you were right, no one would be polluting, and there would be no need for government enforcing anyways. But that's just not the case.


It's OK if you don't. You were just throwing out ideas. I don't think that an all litigious system would be effective for controlling things like environmental abuse by corporations, and explained why, but I'm not attacking you for it or anything. Just discussing the topic you raised.

But don't try to contort this into some other discussion simply to avoid saying "never mind".
 
2013-09-23 06:07:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: (favorite: fan of slavery)

Yeah. That says more about you than me.


Sorry, I honestly have no recollection of why I labeled you thus. It's not something I tend to do, willy nilly. So, are you saying that you are not a fan of slavery then?
 
2013-09-23 06:09:31 PM  

Tor_Eckman: What a thread.  We have a real live example of the "keep the government out of my medicare" guy (Costa Rica's government controlled, regulated and administered mostly single payer healthcare system is great because the government keeps it grubby nose out of it), and people saying that a habitual liar like BJP is reasonable and has common sense.

I'm just really glad I stopped paying for this bullshiat.


Farkers really can be stunningly myopic. Where in the thread did I say anything remotely resembling 'keep government out of my medicare'? Start hunting.

And, another farking thing. It has been mentioned - more than once - that I do NOT benefit from CR's CAJA. I have to pay my own medical bills. Which is fine by me. CAJA is to benefit Ticos. Ticos do not make the wages people make in the US. Most make less than $3.00 hourly. They are pleased with how CAJA works and that's the end of it. I didn't move here to start changing shiat up to how I think it should be. I am a guest in this country and try to act like it as best I can.

I didn't leave the US because of Obamacare or government workers. There was a myriad of reasons and I won't go into them here. The fact that I still have opinions on matters in the US is because I have two adult children living there.

I've been in this thread all day and have been told I'm a moron, a bad mother and now I'm being lied about. Why? Because of my response to the Weeners in this thread.

Don't farking lie about what I've said. Don't make shiat up. It's not helping your side of any debate or conversation. Cool?
 
2013-09-23 06:12:09 PM  
Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?
 
2013-09-23 06:13:43 PM  

sprawl15: 4tehsnowflakes: Maybe you would accept that it discourages them, or some of them?

Sure, but 'this is one of many factors' is a hugely different statement than 'this is the factor'.


The more you tilt the law in favor of the plaintiff's bar, the scarier non-compliance becomes.

4tehsnowflakes:  an agency has no greater legal power to pierce the corporate veil than anyone else.

The last here is incorrect. As a contemporary example, companies engaging in FAR Part 15 FFP contracting ...


A company can agree to various conditions to get a government contract, including voluntarily surrendering some rights.  That is not the same as saying governmental agencies automatically have the power to pierce the corporate veil in a way that a private lawyer could not.  Anyways, this is too technical to entertain Fark.

 make yourself sound like a partisan shill?

Was not aware I had expressed a preference for either of the two major parties.  Have no such preference.  Admit to finding RAND PAUL an interesting figure.  He is nominally the subject of this thread.
 
2013-09-23 06:17:27 PM  

Evil High Priest: Sorry, I honestly have no recollection of why I labeled you thus.


I have no clue, but if I had to guess, it was probably because I argued that "southern pride is not the same thing as support for the confederacy's defense of slavery" or that "most people who fought and died on the side of the confederacy did not do so for purpose of preserving slavery, but rather out of loyalty to and defense of their homeland".

There have been a number of these threads over the years and a number of Farkers who cannot accept either of those statements and therefore consider anyone supporting them must secretly be a racist (which is especially hilarious in my case), or is really a neo-klan apologist (also hilarious in my particular case).

So either you jumped to the wrong conclusions in one of those threads yourself, or you took some of the slap-fight brigader's word on what I was saying.

No. I am not a fan of slavery. I am, however, a fan of the south.
 
2013-09-23 06:20:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 4tehsnowflakes:

Did you have a response to the point that:

Also, if we bottom line it. We already HAVE that. Companies get sued all the time, and yet companies still break the law.
If you were right, no one would be polluting, and there would be no need for government enforcing anyways. But that's just not the case.


I did not advocate abolishing any particular agency such as EPA.  I pointed out that you can make government smaller and less expensive by shifting some kinds of regulatory enforcement burdens to private lawyers.  It was offered to those who automatically assume that when there is a societal ill, the only or best way to address it is to make it a crime, hire more LEO's to enforce it and declare war on the people who contribute to it.
 
2013-09-23 06:39:22 PM  

Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?


i1277.photobucket.com

I think I know this one.  "No"?
 
2013-09-23 06:41:03 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: I did not advocate abolishing any particular agency such as EPA.

I pointed out that you can make government smaller and less expensive by shifting some kinds of regulatory enforcement burdens to private lawyers.

We were discussing the falseness of an absurd assertion that the government is redundant to what the private sector can do and you said:

4tehsnowflakes: As I said, the threat of getting sued makes companies comply with those laws and regulations for which a violation brings the sharks circling, so the public policy goal (say, that companies not dump toxic sludge in waterways) is achieved without having to set up and fund a government agency to enforce it.

4tehsnowflakes: Companies fear private lawsuits more than they fear government oversight, because regulatory oversight is often soft and the company can negotiate over its (non)compliance.



And while I agree that companies are risk averse, and certain expensive litigation can be a deterrent to bad action, we already have a system whereby lawyers can sue for violations of the law, and we can clearly see that it is not enough.

Moreover, what you propose, even if it could be constructed in such a way as to actually be effective in reality STILL requires a governmental agency.

And further, while I agree that that people who think that "when there is a societal ill, the only or best way to address it is to make it a crime, hire more LEO's to enforce it and declare war on the people who contribute to it." are wrongheaded, neither do I think it is reasonable to say the alternative is to jettison governmental regulation, and create an alternate system of furious litigation.

If nothing else, it creates a dangerous scenario whereby those responsible for "protecting the public good" by filing suit against transgressors do so in a way that creates a profit motive for them to sue. There is an inherent flaw in a system that makes the financial self-interest of the plaintiff's the primary motivator for enforcement. It's a recipe for egregious, but unprofitable offenses to be ignored, and trivial, but lucrative offenses to be exploited for gain. It's a recipe for frivolous lawsuits, settlement extortion, and corruption.

In my opinion.
 
2013-09-23 06:42:04 PM  
phenn:

Don't farking lie about what I've said. Don't make shiat up. It's not helping your side of any debate or conversation. Cool?

Other posters have not been kind to you in this thread, this is true.  This is not helping in any way (the left usually has facts and reality on its side and should use them instead of sinking down to a lower level), as being rude and creating personal attack distracts from the issue at hand, which in this case is an unrealistic idea of how governments and their employes should/do function.  However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security.  You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.  That, combined with the way you present your interpretation of the role of government (which is naive, to be polite, but maybe it's just your delivery), has likely contributed to the hostile conversation.

I imagine Costa Rica is nice, but it's quite an easy place to move to once you've worked in the states for a couple of decades.  Living expenses are very cheap for someone of the industrialized world.  I sincerely doubt you would have moved there before you reaped the benefits of your American career and education.
 
2013-09-23 06:44:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: Sorry, I honestly have no recollection of why I labeled you thus.

I have no clue, but if I had to guess, it was probably because I argued that "southern pride is not the same thing as support for the confederacy's defense of slavery" or that "most people who fought and died on the side of the confederacy did not do so for purpose of preserving slavery, but rather out of loyalty to and defense of their homeland".

There have been a number of these threads over the years and a number of Farkers who cannot accept either of those statements and therefore consider anyone supporting them must secretly be a racist (which is especially hilarious in my case), or is really a neo-klan apologist (also hilarious in my particular case).

So either you jumped to the wrong conclusions in one of those threads yourself, or you took some of the slap-fight brigader's word on what I was saying.

No. I am not a fan of slavery. I am, however, a fan of the south.


Yeah, that was probably it. You're a nice shade of (double secret probation) pink, not ignored, though. So that's nice.
 
2013-09-23 06:46:45 PM  

Evil High Priest: You're a nice shade of (double secret probation) pink


I like pink.

/ifyouknowwhattImean.
 
2013-09-23 06:57:33 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: A company can agree to various conditions to get a government contract, including voluntarily surrendering some rights. That is not the same as saying governmental agencies automatically have the power to pierce the corporate veil in a way that a private lawyer could not.


It is identical when the government creates the regulatory position such that the governmental agency has that power. A food inspector can walk into a restaurant at any time to check it for risky food preparation practices. A random citizen - or competing corporation - cannot. You keep begging the question by specifying only cases where the government is not constructed to have the power, then declaring that such a power is not constructed. And it's besides the point; it's a distraction from the actual assertion, that 'what is best for the company' and 'what is best for the people making decisions for the company' are very divergent motivations.

4tehsnowflakes: Was not aware I had expressed a preference for either of the two major parties.


You don't need to, to be a shill. Hurr you must corporate donations and furthermore comma because of no valid reason is what's wrong, not "therefore vote X" tacked on to the end.
 
2013-09-23 07:01:15 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

While I agree that companies are risk averse, and certain expensive litigation can be a deterrent to bad action, we already have a system whereby lawyers can sue for violations of the law, and we can clearly see that it is not enough.

We are speaking at cross-purposes.  My point is that you can put more teeth into laws intended to protect the environment or people sexually harassed at work by adding things like fee provisions.  I argue this can make an agency more efficient.  In a perfect hypothetical system of private enforcement, it would be unnecessary for that agency to have an enforcement arm.  The agency might still have lots of useful functions such as helping to formulate regulations and standards in its area of expertise.

Moreover, what you propose, even if it could be constructed in such a way as to actually be effective in reality STILL requires a governmental agency.

Yes.  I am OK with more courts to handle the extra work.

 neither do I think it is reasonable to say the alternative is to jettison governmental regulation, and create an alternate system of furious litigation.

That's a straw man.  No one said no regulations; the discussion is about enforcement mechanisms.

There is an inherent flaw in a system that makes the financial self-interest of the plaintiff's the primary motivator for enforcement.

Right, why should the victim be the one with the power to hold the big corporation's feet to the fire?  Better it be some bureaucrat who has never met her, but has her interests at heart from 9 to 5 every weekday along with 2,000 other claimants that need his attention.

It's a recipe for frivolous lawsuits, settlement extortion, and corruption.

Hmm, there's an appeal to a stereotype about greedy and unscrupulous lawyers.
 
2013-09-23 07:37:39 PM  
sprawl15:

It is identical when the government creates the regulatory position such that the governmental agency has that power. A food inspector can walk into a restaurant at any time to check it for risky food preparation practices. A random citizen - or competing corporation - cannot. You keep begging the question by specifying only cases where the government is not constructed to have the power, then declaring that such a power is not constructed. And it's besides the point; it's a distraction from the actual assertion, that 'what is best for the company' and 'what is best for the people making decisions for the company' are very divergent motivations.

8/10 wow that is opaque.  Not biting.

 
2013-09-23 07:40:20 PM  

Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?


There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.
 
2013-09-23 07:48:20 PM  

Phinn: Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?

There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.


So all public infrastructure spending is theft. Okie dokie. And you wonder why people are considering your views negatively. It's refreshing actually, to be in the presence of a true, pure libertarian. Like staring into the abyss of self-centered derp.
 
2013-09-23 08:21:37 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security. You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.


Fair cop.

Again, it was the attitude that really stuck in my craw. Everyone in the states is feeling pinched. Public sector, private sector, etc. The OP I responded to got me fired up because their was an air of entitlement to it - at least as I read it. I still don't appreciate being lied about.
 
2013-09-23 08:46:46 PM  

phenn: TwoBeersOneCan: However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security. You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.

Fair cop.

Again, it was the attitude that really stuck in my craw. Everyone in the states is feeling pinched. Public sector, private sector, etc. The OP I responded to got me fired up because their was an air of entitlement to it - at least as I read it. I still don't appreciate being lied about.


Your attitude still needs a serious adjustment.
 
2013-09-23 09:06:51 PM  

Evil High Priest: Phinn: Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?

There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.

So all public infrastructure spending is theft. Okie dokie. And you wonder why people are considering your views negatively. It's refreshing actually, to be in the presence of a true, pure libertarian. Like staring into the abyss of self-centered derp.


I don't particularly care how you consider it. Your opinion doesn't change the ethical character of the act of forcing people to pay for things against their will. Denying that you're a scumbag doesn't make you less of a scumbag.
 
2013-09-23 09:40:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: (favorite: fan of slavery)

Yeah. That says more about you than me.

Sorry, I honestly have no recollection of why I labeled you thus. It's not something I tend to do, willy nilly. So, are you saying that you are not a fan of slavery then?


It would be more accurate to say he's a Confederate apologist.
 
2013-09-23 11:59:25 PM  

Phinn: Evil High Priest: Phinn: Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?

There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.

So all public infrastructure spending is theft. Okie dokie. And you wonder why people are considering your views negatively. It's refreshing actually, to be in the presence of a true, pure libertarian. Like staring into the abyss of self-centered derp.

I don't particularly care how you consider it. Your opinion doesn't change the ethical character of the act of forcing people to pay for things against their will. Denying that you're a scumbag doesn't make you less of a scumbag.


Neo-Nazis hate Jews. Jews drive on public roads. Via taxes Neo-Nazis are forced to help the very Jews they hate drive on roads that they help pay for. DAMN THIS OPPRESSIVE STATISM!!1
 
2013-09-24 12:12:55 AM  
Phinn: ...Your opinion doesn't change the ethical character of the act of forcing people to pay for things against their will...

Said on a machine that was invented and developed overwhelmingly by public universities and defense contractors with government funding, that's hooked up to a power infrastructure laid and maintained by government funding, that uses a telecommunications infrastructure laid and maintained by government funding, using a system of protocols developed using government funding by public universities and DARPA.

Please go Galt.
 
2013-09-24 06:41:23 AM  

Phinn: Evil High Priest: Phinn: Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?

There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.

So all public infrastructure spending is theft. Okie dokie. And you wonder why people are considering your views negatively. It's refreshing actually, to be in the presence of a true, pure libertarian. Like staring into the abyss of self-centered derp.

I don't particularly care how you consider it. Your opinion doesn't change the ethical character of the act of forcing people to pay for things against their will. Denying that you're a scumbag doesn't make you less of a scumbag.



And this is the type of ignorance and simple-minded thinking that has gotten the Libertarians a whopping 5% of the vote, at best... You're a childish ideologue, who subscribes to a childish world view and childish philosophy.
 
2013-09-24 09:18:14 AM  

Fart_Machine: It would be more accurate to say he's a Confederate apologist.


Hah, try reading his posts in a Foghorn Leghorn voice some time; it fits perfectly. He's got the "independent" act down to a science, actually - one of the more effective trolls on here.
 
2013-09-24 10:07:10 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: My point is that you can put more teeth into laws intended to protect the environment or people sexually harassed at work by adding things like fee provisions.


These goal posts seem to keep shifting. OK. So now if you are simply suggesting fee provisions as a penalty for violations, I don't really have an argument to that, but it's not what you originally laid out. Also, we currently have fee provisions for violations of existing laws and regulations, so I'm not seeing a big difference. Maybe I'm missing something.

4tehsnowflakes: In a perfect hypothetical system of private enforcement, it would be unnecessary for that agency to have an enforcement arm.


I'm not exactly following the difference here. At some point, some agency with authority will have to step in to enforce whatever penalty has been assessed. In our current system, the enforcement agency is different from the regulatory/fining agency. (A Sherriff or other LE agency seizes property for a judgment, closes down a business, etc.  if it comes to that.) No matter who assigns the penalty, you will need an enforcement arm when people don't willingly comply.

4tehsnowflakes: Right, why should the victim be the one with the power to hold the big corporation's feet to the fire? Better it be some bureaucrat who has never met her, but has her interests at heart from 9 to 5 every weekday along with 2,000 other claimants that need his attention.


The two are not mutually exclusive. the victim CURRENTLY has the power to hold the big corporation's feet to the fire. We CURRENTLY have a plaintiff's judiciary relief AND a governmental regulatory agency enforcing the law. Your original premise was that the private sector could handle these things with no need for a governmental enforcement agency. I am not seeing a supported argument of how that would work.

4tehsnowflakes: Hmm, there's an appeal to a stereotype about greedy and unscrupulous lawyers.


Not really. It's an acknowledgement that a purely litigious control system that relies on a profit motive is extremely prone to abuses through frivolous lawsuits, settlement extortion, and corruption.

And your comment does not dispute that.

Anywho, interesting discussion. Have a great day.
 
2013-09-24 12:03:12 PM  

phenn: TwoBeersOneCan: However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security. You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.

Fair cop.

Again, it was the attitude that really stuck in my craw. Everyone in the states is feeling pinched. Public sector, private sector, etc. The OP I responded to got me fired up because their was an air of entitlement to it - at least as I read it. I still don't appreciate being lied about.


There's not a goddamn person who lied about you in this thread.  You read the guy's post one way, everybody else read your post in one way. The way I read it, you made the assumption, from no other data other than the fact that the other guy worked in the government, that not only was his job completely unnecessary, but he was also somehow responsible for the economic mess.  You went on to say that his desire to get paid for working was somehow a sense of entitlement and made him a moocher.

In other words, it's your attitude that really sticks in all our craws.
 
2013-09-24 01:25:33 PM  

HeartBurnKid: phenn: TwoBeersOneCan: However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security. You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.

Fair cop.

Again, it was the attitude that really stuck in my craw. Everyone in the states is feeling pinched. Public sector, private sector, etc. The OP I responded to got me fired up because their was an air of entitlement to it - at least as I read it. I still don't appreciate being lied about.

There's not a goddamn person who lied about you in this thread.  You read the guy's post one way, everybody else read your post in one way. The way I read it, you made the assumption, from no other data other than the fact that the other guy worked in the government, that not only was his job completely unnecessary, but he was also somehow responsible for the economic mess.  You went on to say that his desire to get paid for working was somehow a sense of entitlement and made him a moocher.

In other words, it's your attitude that really sticks in all our craws.


There actually is a goddamned person who lied about me in this thread, but that's okay. I don't expect you to read the entire thing.

What amazes me about all of this is that the person I responded to (fark you, I got bills to pay) hasn't gotten a peep of shame. But I, the person who finds fault with the system and decided to leave, got crucified.

The original poster didn't say "stop it, you chumps. You're hurting the country." Did he? No. Fark you. I got bills to pay. Total self interest. Acceptable. My self interest? Total batshiat - according to the people in this thread.

It is positively astounding that I was the one called out as being selfish. Called a biatch, a bad mother, a moron and on and on. By people who don't know the first thing about me - justifying such rubbish because I don't know the first thing about the person I replied to.

Stunning.

FARK has truly turned into an angry hive for the far left and that's a bloody shame.
 
2013-09-24 01:29:01 PM  

phenn: HeartBurnKid: phenn: TwoBeersOneCan: However, remember the very first thing you contributed to this thread was an attack on someone because he was concerned about his job security. You assumed that his job wasn't a "real" one and decided to attack whatever he did for a living without knowing any details of his employment.

Fair cop.

Again, it was the attitude that really stuck in my craw. Everyone in the states is feeling pinched. Public sector, private sector, etc. The OP I responded to got me fired up because their was an air of entitlement to it - at least as I read it. I still don't appreciate being lied about.

There's not a goddamn person who lied about you in this thread.  You read the guy's post one way, everybody else read your post in one way. The way I read it, you made the assumption, from no other data other than the fact that the other guy worked in the government, that not only was his job completely unnecessary, but he was also somehow responsible for the economic mess.  You went on to say that his desire to get paid for working was somehow a sense of entitlement and made him a moocher.

In other words, it's your attitude that really sticks in all our craws.

There actually is a goddamned person who lied about me in this thread, but that's okay. I don't expect you to read the entire thing.

What amazes me about all of this is that the person I responded to (fark you, I got bills to pay) hasn't gotten a peep of shame. But I, the person who finds fault with the system and decided to leave, got crucified.

The original poster didn't say "stop it, you chumps. You're hurting the country." Did he? No. Fark you. I got bills to pay. Total self interest. Acceptable. My self interest? Total batshiat - according to the people in this thread.

It is positively astounding that I was the one called out as being selfish. Called a biatch, a bad mother, a moron and on and on. By people who don't know the first thing about me - justifying such rubbish because I don't ...


Because every single one of us has bills to pay, many of us have seen our ability to pay them diminished by the Tea Party's actions in one way or another, and -- unlike you -- we have a shred of empathy.

And FARK only seems like "an angry hive for the far left" because you're an angry asshole from the far right.
 
2013-09-24 01:35:19 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And FARK only seems like "an angry hive for the far left" because you're an angry asshole from the far right.


Yes. My advocacy for rights for the disabled and LGBT communities speaks to that.

Sigh....
 
2013-09-24 02:22:19 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And FARK only seems like "an angry hive for the far left" because you're an angry asshole from the far right.


Nah, she's right. Her topic point here was dead wrong, but about that? nailed it.

Fark lefties are particularly nasty and juvenile. And it's been getting worse. Not just a complete inability to accept the validity of contrary viewpoints, but an almost pathological need to strike out and attack anyone who fails to adhere to the groupthink.
 
2013-09-24 02:56:16 PM  
Awful lot of projecting in here all of a sudden...
 
2013-09-24 03:20:37 PM  

keylock71: Phinn: Evil High Priest: Phinn: Evil High Priest: Are mandatory taxes for national infrastructure "theft", or not?

There are no voluntary taxes. Nor any free slaves, tall midgets, or intelligent Yankees.

As for the theft question, yeah, changing the word you use to describe an act totes changes its ethical character.

So all public infrastructure spending is theft. Okie dokie. And you wonder why people are considering your views negatively. It's refreshing actually, to be in the presence of a true, pure libertarian. Like staring into the abyss of self-centered derp.

I don't particularly care how you consider it. Your opinion doesn't change the ethical character of the act of forcing people to pay for things against their will. Denying that you're a scumbag doesn't make you less of a scumbag.


And this is the type of ignorance and simple-minded thinking that has gotten the Libertarians a whopping 5% of the vote, at best... You're a childish ideologue, who subscribes to a childish world view and childish philosophy.



Did it make you feel better to get all of that out?
 
2013-09-24 04:18:26 PM  

phenn: HeartBurnKid: And FARK only seems like "an angry hive for the far left" because you're an angry asshole from the far right.

Yes. My advocacy for rights for the disabled and LGBT communities speaks to that.

Sigh....


You must do that with my girlfriend.  She lives in Canada, you know.

Frankly, I don't know you from Adam.  What I do know is that, knowing nothing about somebody other than (a) he works for the federal government and (b) he enjoys being paid a living wage, you decided that he's lazy and entitled and the cause of all the country's problems.  And that's a very far-right thing to do.
 
Displayed 34 of 484 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report