Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 My money. I don't need the government paying for my health care. I'm a big boy I can take care of it myself thank you. Lucky you, everyone is not so fortunate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Lucky you, everyone is not so fortunate as hard working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I know, isn't that so troll like to compare health care to porn? Oh, were you talking about me? When you say the government should provide things that people like, then the comparison becomes accurate. It's called a reducto ad absurdum argument - demonstrating that your own statement is complete bull **** by, in this case, establishing an equivalence that's patently ridiculous but under your own logic absolutely valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 When you say the government should provide things that people like, then the comparison becomes accurate. It's called a reducto ad absurdum argument - demonstrating that your own statement is complete bull **** by, in this case, establishing an equivalence that's patently ridiculous but under your own logic absolutely valid. That's a dangerous road to take with libs because once you land on absurdum, you just gave them their next great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Lucky you, everyone is not so fortunate So what? The purpose of government is not to provide good fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 So what? The purpose of government is not to provide good fortune. You know when you'll want the government to provide you good fortune? When your head's bouncing down a flight of stairs, that's when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Lucky you, everyone is not so fortunate Your such a great guy fork over more of your paycheck as a donation hero. Don't ask other to do the same. If we work for our money we deserve to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Your such a great guy fork over more of your paycheck as a donation hero. Don't ask other to do the same. If we work for our money we deserve to keep it. As always- you don't want to any of your taxes to go to help the poor, I don't want my taxes to go to a military empire, or corporate subsidies, or the war on drugs, or homeland security, or the TSA, or bank bailouts - you are not the only one who pays taxes I suggest we let people decide where their taxes should be spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 As always- you don't want to any of your taxes to go to help the poor, I don't want my taxes to go to a military empire, or corporate subsidies, or the war on drugs, or homeland security, or the TSA, or bank bailouts - you are not the only one who pays taxes I suggest we let people decide where their taxes should be spent. There is an easy distinction here. Each person can choose his own amount of charity. But no two men can have different levels of national security, hence, that is one essential element of government that must be agreed upon. And on a completely separate topic, why the !@#$ do I keep hearing libs whining about corporate subsidies??? That's like neocons complaining about excessive defense spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 There is an easy distinction here. Each person can choose his own amount of charity. But no two men can have different levels of national security, hence, that is one essential element of government that must be agreed upon. And on a completely separate topic, why the !@#$ do I keep hearing libs whining about corporate subsidies??? That's like neocons complaining about excessive defense spending. The level of funding is the agreement - and providing a minimum standard of care with the social cohesion that provides is part of national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The level of funding is the agreement - and providing a minimum standard of care with the social cohesion that provides is part of national security. I get what you're saying, but that doesn't apply to your analogy that you having to pay the set level of taxes for national defense is equivalent to being forced to pay for charity. They are dissimilar in a very fundamental way, which I explained. You may feel that forcing people to pay for charity is worthwhile, but that's an entirely different debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I get what you're saying, but that doesn't apply to your analogy that you having to pay the set level of taxes for national defense is equivalent to being forced to pay for charity. They are dissimilar in a very fundamental way, which I explained. You may feel that forcing people to pay for charity is worthwhile, but that's an entirely different debate. If you were talking about a national defense that was actually about national defense you might have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 If you were talking about a national defense that was actually about national defense you might have a point. The point stands regardless of your opinion of how the military is used. You and I may have different opinions about the proper use and scope of the military, however, you can not have one level of military action and I another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The point stands regardless of your opinion of how the military is used. You and I may have different opinions about the proper use and scope of the military, however, you can not have one level of military action and I another. Right now that is also true of social spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Right now that is also true of social spending. Only if your social programs are nationalized Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) Only if your social programs are nationalized Reason for people of the progressive persuasion to Fight like hell against the Ryan plan. Edited April 18, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 When you say the government should provide things that people like, then the comparison becomes accurate. It's called a reducto ad absurdum argument - demonstrating that your own statement is complete bull **** by, in this case, establishing an equivalence that's patently ridiculous but under your own logic absolutely valid. The only problem is that most people do not see the government providing health care as bull crude, that's only you anti-government ninnies. I'm glad you do see your argument as stupid though. And, btw, you are really slipping badly. So what? The purpose of government is not to provide good fortune. Then why did it create a money supply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The only problem is that most people do not see the government providing health care as bull crude, that's only you anti-government ninnies. I'm glad you do see your argument as stupid though. And, btw, you are really slipping badly. Well then if people think the government providing health care is a good thing why is the government not providing health care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The only problem is that most people do not see the government providing health care as bull crude, But that's not what you said, you said the government should provide things that people like. So should the government provide things that people like? If so, why not porn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 1.14% drop in the dow does not a crisis make, yet anyway. but for once, i agree with cantor. this is a warning shot. health care does not equal porn even if a prominent surgeon feels there are beneficial mood effects from semen for females (see my off the wall post). so raise taxes and cut spending starting with medicare, medicaid and social security. rationing is now mandatory, whatever they decide to call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts