Shouldn't Funding Anti-ManBearPig Programs be a top...

[OCinBuffalo]

Anyone who doesn't put making sure ManBearPig(south park) doesn't kill our kids as a TOP PRIORITY is an IDIOT and DOESN'T CARE ABOUT KIDS. It's that Simple. Republicans don't even ACKNOWLEDGE ManBearPig's existence, so obviously they don't care about our kids.

 

In other news, OCiP asked Molsen_Golden a direct question: When did you stop beating your wife/husband/gay partner? To which Molsen_Golden could not give a solid answer. Obviously Molsen does not care about kids either and is not in touch with American working families .

[molson_golden2002]

Wow! You should give a speech before a group of people trying to survive cancer! You are a good example of how ideology trumps reality with simple minds. A complete useful idiot

[/dev/null]

Wow! You should give a speech before a group of people trying to survive cancer! You are a good example of how ideology trumps reality with simple minds. A complete useful idiot

 

Pot meet kettle

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow! You should give a speech before a group of people trying to survive cancer! You are a good example of how ideology trumps reality with simple minds. A complete useful idiot

I don't think I have ever met/heard of a person who is more capable of missing a point more than you. Let me dumb it down for you:

 

You can't pose false choice questions and expect to get away with it as long as I am monitoring this board.

 

Of course we should spend money on Healthcare Research - hell it would help me in my job, and my job helps lots of people. The point of this thread, which you clearly missed, is that you, like most shrill liberals(the A.N.S.W.E.R people especially) are posing ridiculous, political point-getting arguments about a very important issue, and when you not doing that you are using zero or infinity, or all or nothing, logic.

 

You might as well ask if we like to sing a song when we beat our kids(I don't have any). Do you see that no matter how I answer the question, I am agreeing with your premise that I do in fact beat my kids? I am not going to talk about songs with you if it means by doing so, I become complicit in beating my kids. It's the same thing with you every time-> you raise an issue out of proper context and then set up the proverbial straws on edge, knock them over, and say "See I was right. Straws on edge fall over".

 

Your ridiculous post is full of false implication and apparently you're too dumb to realize it. Let's try one false implication just to keep it simple for ya:

 

You say: Healthcare is a priority but you don't qualify that against other priorities. By unrealistically isolating health care as a "priority" and then attempting to point to a lack funding, you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you must not care about health care. The facts are not even close - we all care about health care. WE ALL WANT a way to solve this problem that EQUITABLE FOR EVERYONE. The problem is you, as usual, aren't offering a solution, and, as usual, are blaming others for FAILED LIBERAL POLICY.

 

Another false choice example: You are, also as usual, telling us that we have to raise taxes to spend more money on research, with the implication that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT is capable/willing to spend big bucks on research, WHEN THE FACTS ARE that health care companies, not just limited to the Pharma companies, spend BILLIONS on research every year. SO AGAIN "SHOULDN'T we spend money on government funding...etc., implies that IF WE DON"T = WE DON'T CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE. It also implies that the government is the ONLY way to fund Health care research. And again, we know that that there are many, many ways which money is being allocated to health care research besides the government.

 

I have told you once, and I am telling you again, you are entitled to your opinion, but the minute you try to bullsh!t people I will be on you, making you look foolish, every time.

[molson_golden2002]

Pot meet kettle

Bull sh--, that guy is more in your Bush league than mine. I made a serious argument he made a stupid one. It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see the difference

[/dev/null]

Bull sh--, that guy is more in your Bush league than mine. I made a serious argument he made a stupid one. It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see the difference

 

too predictable

[molson_golden2002]

I don't think I have ever met/heard of a person who is more capable of missing a point more than you. Let me dumb it down for you:

 

You can't pose false choice questions and expect to get away with it as long as I am monitoring this board.

 

Of course we should spend money on Healthcare Research - hell it would help me in my job, and my job helps lots of people. The point of this thread, which you clearly missed, is that you, like most shrill liberals(the A.N.S.W.E.R people especially) are posing ridiculous, political point-getting arguments about a very important issue, and when you not doing that you are using zero or infinity, or all or nothing, logic.

 

You might as well ask if we like to sing a song when we beat our kids(I don't have any). Do you see that no matter how I answer the question, I am agreeing with your premise that I do in fact beat my kids? I am not going to talk about songs with you if it means by doing so, I become complicit in beating my kids. It's the same thing with you every time-> you raise an issue out of proper context and then set up the proverbial straws on edge, knock them over, and say "See I was right. Straws on edge fall over".

 

Your ridiculous post is full of false implication and apparently you're too dumb to realize it. Let's try one false implication just to keep it simple for ya:

 

You say: Healthcare is a priority but you don't qualify that against other priorities. By unrealistically isolating health care as a "priority" and then attempting to point to a lack funding, you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you must not care about health care. The facts are not even close - we all care about health care. WE ALL WANT a way to solve this problem that EQUITABLE FOR EVERYONE. The problem is you, as usual, aren't offering a solution, and, as usual, are blaming others for FAILED LIBERAL POLICY.

 

Another false choice example: You are, also as usual, telling us that we have to raise taxes to spend more money on research, with the implication that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT is capable/willing to spend big bucks on research, WHEN THE FACTS ARE that health care companies, not just limited to the Pharma companies, spend BILLIONS on research every year. SO AGAIN "SHOULDN'T we spend money on government funding...etc., implies that IF WE DON"T = WE DON'T CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE. It also implies that the government is the ONLY way to fund Health care research. And again, we know that that there are many, many ways which money is being allocated to health care research besides the government.

 

I have told you once, and I am telling you again, you are entitled to your opinion, but the minute you try to bullsh!t people I will be on you, making you look foolish, every time.

Your whole post is full of it. I love how you slip in the lie, by why of saying its an "implication" on my part, which it isn't, that the government is the only one doing research. Never said that, never implied it. So you are making crap up. Why? Because you have to. Yet another straw man arguer. No surprise. A lot of you righties do that. Better than arguing the facts I guess.

 

Still, no private research company can match the Feds for money. As has been pointed out by me an others, federal grants are important and should be funded. Why should cancer, lukimiea, and diabetes researchers have to resort to begging for quarters at store counters for funding. Imagine if we funded the disaster in Iraq that way?

 

Take it easy strawman!

[OCinBuffalo]

Your whole post is full of it. I love how you slip in the lie, by why of saying its an "implication" on my part, which it isn't, that the government is the only one doing research. Never said that, never implied it. So you are making crap up. Why? Because you have to. Yet another straw man arguer. No surprise. A lot of you righties do that. Better than arguing the facts I guess.

 

Still, no private research company can match the Feds for money. As has been pointed out by me an others, federal grants are important and should be funded. Why should cancer, lukimiea, and diabetes researchers have to resort to begging for quarters at store counters for funding. Imagine if we funded the disaster in Iraq that way?

 

Take it easy strawman!

You have to be kidding. No one can match the FEDS BUDGET on the WHOLE yes, but there is no way the government, at any level, outspends private industry, OR NON-PROFITS like the American Cancer Society, on SPECIFIC CANCER RESEARCH. Again, another false choice argument. The Federal Budget is spent on all kinds of things, in addition to research grants, but you are not talking in terms of dollar for dollar spending.

 

I am not slipping any lies anywhere - WHAT AM I LYING ABOUT? I am talking about the first post in your thread. I don't care about what other people have said, I care about what you have said. Don't try to say there is no implication in your post when there clearly is. You are implying that there are only 2 choices:

 

1. massive funding of government grants,

2. or no funding at all.

 

as though

 

choice 3. Private industry oncology research

choice 4. Non-Profit oncology research

 

don't exist. When the fact is they do. I would much rather see money moved to a dedicated non-profit, whose job it is to cure cancer, than the government, whose job it is to RUN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY for as cheap as possible so we get to have more of the money WE WORK FOR.

 

And, if someone says: "hey we need to put this in the proper context of the country as a whole", or, "the government is not necessarily the best place to spend money since they have no profit motive", both valid points, you ACCUSE THEM OF NOT CARING ABOUT HEALTH CARE, which isn't the case.

 

If you aren't capable of thinking in terms of relativity, don't run around and attempt(poorly) to belittle those of us that are. It just makes you look more foolish than you already do. Go ahead and try to address this in reasonable terms: I dare you.

[molson_golden2002]

You have to be kidding. No one can match the FEDS BUDGET on the WHOLE yes, but there is no way the government, at any level, outspends private industry, OR NON-PROFITS like the American Cancer Society, on SPECIFIC CANCER RESEARCH. Again, another false choice argument. The Federal Budget is spent on all kinds of things, in addition to research grants, but you are not talking in terms of dollar for dollar spending.

 

I am not slipping any lies anywhere - WHAT AM I LYING ABOUT? I am talking about the first post in your thread. I don't care about what other people have said, I care about what you have said. Don't try to say there is no implication in your post when there clearly is. You are implying that there are only 2 choices:

 

1. massive funding of government grants,

2. or no funding at all.

 

as though

 

choice 3. Private industry oncology research

choice 4. Non-Profit oncology research

 

don't exist. When the fact is they do. I would much rather see money moved to a dedicated non-profit, whose job it is to cure cancer, than the government, whose job it is to RUN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY for as cheap as possible so we get to have more of the money WE WORK FOR.

 

And, if someone says: "hey we need to put this in the proper context of the country as a whole", or, "the government is not necessarily the best place to spend money since they have no profit motive", both valid points, you ACCUSE THEM OF NOT CARING ABOUT HEALTH CARE, which isn't the case.

 

If you aren't capable of thinking in terms of relativity, don't run around and attempt(poorly) to belittle those of us that are. It just makes you look more foolish than you already do. Go ahead and try to address this in reasonable terms: I dare you.

Again, you are just making crap up. Grow up