Lawnman's Waterfall
The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.
Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)
Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?
All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.
(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)
If I am the Chief, yes. I can differentiate betwixt necesssary abuse and blatant,unnecessary insult.
Furthermore, I am for spanking! But I also think it is prudent to recognize the process of correction even when it means appropriate ad-hominem.
If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.
Solution:
Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.
Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!
Do we not think some truths are offensive?
But whatever is decided, take heed:
Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.
(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)
Like this:?
Kuklapolitan(4252) Disputed 5 points
Since when did being Patriotic become an accusation? You drinking that hula-whoop-whoop juice again or what?
506 days ago | Tagged As: Liberals
Support | Dispute | Report Really? YES|NO Report Submitted
This is the second highest rated post in the "Who's more patriotic?" debate. The highest vote count is 6!
Liberals have the highest vote count as of today!
You will note the post is two questions. No argument!
Upvoting questions is another example of a retarded response.
Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again.
There is no broad generalization. Why? There is no reason to think Joe is thinking of all, most, or all but a few liberals.
He did not affirm:
a) All liberals…
b) Most liberals…
c) All or most female liberals…
d) All of most male liberals…
e) Blah,blah,blah.
The term ‘liberals’ only allows us to infer: at least two liberals…
To claim it is a broad generalization is to fall prey to our assumed and imputed distribution of the subject, not his. So, we might care to ask him of the number of liberals he speaks of. Albeit, the truth of the matter is that there are many liberals and conservatives who resort to name-calling. And yet if it is found that most of these groups do resort to that tactic, the real question would then be:
Why is it broadly true that both liberals and conservatives resort to name-calling?
"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".
Actually, it is identical to “Change you can believe in.”
The fact is that under my proposal the welfare system will either add 5 million people to the bourgeois or save 50 million people from proletary within the first year.
Do you like the Obama-esque nature of my arguments on this subject?
Were you equally as critical of Obama’s campaign speeches as you have been of my arguments?
That is enough jesting for now.
If you think what I have submitted is fantastical then you have by prejudice alone formed a conclusion. Instead of asking how exactly I aim to accomplish these goals, you judge my objectives as “fantasy land nonsense”.
Now, what reason would I have to explain the means to my objectives to a person who has clearly demonstrated unrestrained prejudice?
Shall I entrap myself by your prejudice? I do not think so!
Helping the poor live long enough to collect the next month's welfare check and consume next months food stamp purchases is nothing more than the tender mercies of cruelty.
Either give them prosperity or shut-down the current welfare system.
Funny, I despise taxation without representation, and yet I am arguing for the prosperity of paupers. Yet, the compassionate liberals insist that subsistence is good for me and the paupers.
Who's cruel and hard-hearted?
I think many people, like yourself, need to put away their antiquated devices for helping the impoverished and think outside of the box!
So, you simply think we ought to maintain the status quo concerning the public welfare system?
Why are you opposed to an alternative public welfare system that instead of helping the poor be less poor it is salvation for the poor. Will the welfare system I am proposing change the fact that we dislike welfare? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing stop poverty? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing foster subsistence? (Subsistence: the condition of being or managing to stay alive, especially when there is barely enough food or money for survival.) Nope! What the welfare system could accomplish under my proposal is far less shameful than the current form.
(My proposal doesn’t require any increase in taxation. But it certainly requires a re-prioritization of tax dollars.)
I hope you see that your opponent has changed the subject of the debate!
He is now talking about automatic firearms which in deed do require licensing. What he failed to understand is that we can own and buy single-action and semi-action firearms without a license. And if he thinks he is correct that you cannot own a gun without a license then ask him to produce an e-image of this license that doesn't exist. Hell, I own enough guns that any right-minded liberal might call my safe a weapons cache. I simply call it inventory. But, one thing I don't have is a license to own any gun. Why? Because the guns I own do not require a license to buy or own.
His argument is completely fallacious.
Does anyone honestly have a better solution?
What is the problem? According to my observations the only problem being addressed in debates such as this is the problem of the welfare system. If the current welfare system is a solution to poverty then poverty as a problem is solved. But as self-evidently demonstrated by debates of this subject, poverty has not been solved by the welfare system. Moreover, the welfare system has become a problem in and of itself.
Now don’t misunderstand my position. The welfare system of the US is not a solution to poverty, but it certainly is a problem for the welfare of working Americans, i.e. the cost in income taxes. But, simultaneously I concede that charity is a necessary responsibility. My complaint is not predicated upon charity, my complaint is predicated upon some politician or bureaucrat deciding for both you and I how charitable we shall be this tax year and to whom we shall be charitable to this tax year. (I am digressing.)
Back to the question at-hand, how can any person argue that the welfare system is a solution when the welfare system only maintains poverty. The words “The maintenance of poverty” come to my mind when public welfare is mentioned. How can we be so cruel and yet so blind concerning welfare? Well, each man ought to answer that question for himself. What am I alluding to?
Firstly, no man has the right to determine when, how much, and to whom any man is charitable. Secondly, if some politicians or bureaucrats think that they have the authority to determine for myself and 300+million Americans why, when, how much and to whom we shall be charitable then I suggest that they pull their heads out of their asses and stop maintaining poverty. If we are going to suffer the burden of taxation for our charity, which is assumed and governed by politically motivated persons, then I suggest that they stop servicing poverty and start pulling the poor out of poverty. What?
Yes! If someone is dying of thirst shall you give them only enough water to stave off death, or shall you give them enough water so that they are made strong and healthy again so that they too can water not only themselves but other as well? If someone is starving of food, shall we prolong their starvation by bits of food? If someone is overcome by disease shall we nourish the disease or cause health to overcome?
The answers to those questions are not universally applicable to all of the problems that plague humanity. But they certainly hint at a better response to poverty than our current welfare system (problem). Consider the following example as an efficacious use of charity (taxation).
Thanks to the charity of the taxpayers, the federal government is the only employer who seems to be always hiring. Therefore tax dollars most certainly assure the prosperity of the federal government. Why don’t we assert our authority and insist that our charitable taxation dollars are spent for the purpose of pulling the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity. And then those who are consequently prosperous can afford to pull the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity as well.
(If anyone feels disposed to disagree then speak your mind.)
I think there are many liberals who need a liberal dose of reason and maturity. (I am not excluding members of other parties.) Furthermore, I think that as the aging liberal and conservative electorates near death, they are being replaced by younger and dumber members. And as this process continues we shall bare witness to an ever-increasing promotion of stupidity and mental illness that is manifested in both the Congress and the White House of the United States.
Pussy:)
Hmmm, then I guess owning a gun is not a "right", since one usually needs to own a license or a permit to own one...lol...checkmate...
Propaganda or ignorance from a Liberal?
I think a bit of both.
ATF form 4473 is merely a transaction record that indicates a Federally licensed gun-dealer has sold a specific firearm to a person who is not a criminal. For example:
If Joe Cavalry has not been convicted of a felony, Joe Cavalry can buy as many guns as he would like. He needs neither a license to own nor buy a firearm from an FFL dealer. ATF form 4473 is merely a record of a firearm transaction, OTC. The form amounts to little more than a Federal document which serves as a record of registration that a firearm has been sold to a law abiding citizen.
May it be clearly understood that I despise piss-poor thinking, not the piss-poor thinkers.
Perhaps if people were more discerning and a whole lot less selfish, Obama may have helped make the US a better country. But, it seems as though Obama has no choice other than to help the majority who want to help themselves by everyone, globally.
Would someone grant me the intelligence that is required to understand how a man who is equally black and white is black?
Or am I the only person that knows he is a halfrican-american?
Moreover, why do people dishonor both him and his mother by ignoring his white heritage? Would that be because they (typical americans) are racist?
BLAH blah bl b!
The question ought to be: Who do americans think he is? Not who does he think himself to be.
Silent prayer that is!
And yet when that prayer is not so silent, shall the little children be suspended? (I think it is obvious where this argument shall lead!)
(Hint! Public schools have no policy for the punishment of students who pray. Christian schools do not punish students who pray. So, whether public or Christian no policy enforcer punishes the students because of prayer.)
As an aside, should the NFL have a policy regarding a players homage after a TD? (It's public!)
Agreed! And I would also add:
If we are driving our vehicles down rough roads, do we redesign the wheel or do we fix the roads? (Is not the gov. responsible for the rough roads anyway, i.e. the extensive regulation of the healthcare industry?)
Or, if we are chewing our hands off, do we stop chewing or do we take more pain killers to stop the pain?
BLAH! Blah!
I could list dozens more examples, but what I find extraordinary is the fact our words are largely ignored.
Glad to see your presence at CD!!!!
Curious!
What new form of accounting is being used that enables a country which cannot afford the ever-rising expense of healthcare to add 40 million healthcare patients to the expense and thereby not only make healthcare less expensive but profitable for the federal government.
Or said this way: If 300 million people cannot afford their healthcare with health insurance and government assistance then how will the same 300 million pay for the added expense of 40 million more subsidized patients? And when 340 million people can’t afford healthcare why is it that they can afford to pay more in taxes. (Don't overlook the soundness of that example. For the fact remains that 40 million people are currently subsidized by their fellow americans.)
Healthcare reform that increases the coffers of the federal government is governmentcare. I mean goddamnit- Do we the people of the United States need another fucking insurance company that is beholden to a board of directors and investors who seek greater returns on their investments? (Oh, I forgot, politicians and bureaucrats are political, not accountable.)
Finally, do we need healthcare that indeed is healthcare that is affordable for low-wage workers, or do we want healthcare that requires a sugar-daddy?
Hell. I am only ranting. And why shouldn’t I, was it not the government who has regulated the entire healthcare industry of the US right up unto the day when the government declares that healthcare reform is now necessary. Talk about steering the ship over a waterfall and then using the same captain to direct the fall. We even go so far to say that we should listen to the captain and consent to his plan about how we should fall!
I’m not disputing your argument, I am taking an opportunity to speak plainly of what ought to be obvious to us all. What are your thoughts?
