Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Overwrought hyperbole. Someone - someone we all know a little (at least) about, and have some respect for - made a judgment call. Maybe we disagree with it. Maybe not. Cut some slack, and move on.

Bilmoure if you are defending the reds at the DU then I have truly lost all respect for you.......even more so than that time I accused you of being a misogynistic wife oppressor!

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you not see a distinction between taxes spent on the military versus welfare?

Sure I do. I support one and not the other.

You want the government to buy bombers; I want it to buy infant formula.

Oh wait. I guess that was Bilmore's point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you not see a distinction between taxes spent on the military versus welfare?

A few weeks ago, you were suggesting that someone who was in a vegetative state had some sort of right to kept on life support. (Can't remember the details.) I remember thinking at the time, but not posting, that you clearly think there should be some sort of safety net, because you were saying that this person had the right to continuing medical treatment at other people's expense. (Effectively enslaving them, by your reasoning.) From there to welfare is only a question of degree (or, per Churchill, price), no?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Whoa, there. At least some little part of his original post remains. When the stormtroopers from the right read my words of hope and recognized them as a beacon of hope and rally point for all oppressed persons of wit everywhere, the ENTIRE POST was deleted. Disappeared. Gone. Vanished. Except for the copy on slave's hard drive. RT gave wonk the kid-glove treatment by comparison (and I'm sure he enjoyed it).

'
2. Even worse no one from lawtalkers has stepped up to the plate, npi, and taken responsibility for the breach of good faith.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Bilmoure if you are defending the reds at the DU then I have truly lost all respect for you.......even more so than that time I accused you of being a misogynistic wife oppressor!

I will defend them to the death. They're better than a night of Monty Python reruns.

And how did you ever know that my wife was misogynistic?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Certainly I do. Do you see the similarities?

They both simply represent some level of common effort for some agreed-upon social goal.

We may differ as to how much we should take from the private for public purpose, and we might also disagree as to whether certain expenditures actually serve a public purpose, but, again, those become arguments of scope, not of right. "Too much" necessarily admits that some amount is appropriate.

I see the "both for the common good" argument, but find that unpursuasive because you can make that argument for nearly everything. Hell, it can be argued that the nazi experiments were for the common good.

I think the indirect/direct payment distinction is cleaner and far more defensible. You are "robbing" from on and giving directly to "others."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A few weeks ago, you were suggesting that someone who was in a vegetative state had some sort of right to kept on life support. (Can't remember the details.) I remember thinking at the time, but not posting, that you clearly think there should be some sort of safety net, because you were saying that this person had the right to continuing medical treatment at other people's expense. (Effectively enslaving them, by your reasoning.) From there to welfare is only a question of degree (or, per Churchill, price), no?

You have my point wrong. I said nothing about on someone else's dime. But I do think that I have a right to be kept in a vegetable state on my own (or my insurers) dime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, as a point of consistency, he holds those views himself, so it's less of a pandering thing than it's being made out to be here.

I think that people believe the President to be pandering because (1) the moral calculus makes so little sense, and (2) his decision struck people as a political compromise -- an effort to have it both ways (as do Laura Bush's recent comments).

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hey bilmore, you had to be pretty bent out of shape last week when Bush floated the idea of switching from an income tax to a national sales tax. Here you've paid an income tax through your whole career, and now, on the eve of your golden years, as you and your geriatric pals get ready to spend the money you've amassed, you find out that he's planning to whack you again. That can't have gone down well.

I'm fairly geriatric in a preternaturally boyishly good looking sort of way and I'm all for the abolition of the income tax. Once we start down the road to the end to the oppressive progressive tax system its a slippery slope to a tax free society and eventually the anarchy of the personal arsenal and I am locked and loaded!

RedStatePatriot

eta: oops, blew another sock

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You have my point wrong. I said nothing about on someone else's dime. But I do think that I have a right to be kept in a vegetable state on my own (or my insurers) dime.

RT surely knows better than I do, but I can't believe most insurance will pay for that for very long, and most people don't have that kind of money.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the indirect/direct payment distinction is cleaner and far more defensible. You are "robbing" from one and giving directly to "others."

My National Guard dollars are being spent on devastated Floridians as we speak. A direct transfer to them, basically.

My Border Patrol monies mostly protect residents of vulnerable border states.

My military expenditures in Afghanistan are primarily protecting people who live on the coasts, in big cities. Think Osama is ever going to target Minnesota?

I think you artifically make your distinction more . . . distinct.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, what he has banned is federal funding for any program

No dog in the fight, but if Bush did fund the research he'd have to cut something else, right? what other medical research should he cut?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
I'm fairly geriatric in a preternaturally boyishly good looking sort of way and I'm all for the abolition of the income tax. Once we start down the road to the end to the oppressive progressive tax system its a slippery slope to a tax free society and eventually the anarchy of the personal arsenal and I am locked and loaded!

It's too bad your President, Senators and Representatives keep spending so much money, ensuring that we will all be paying high taxes well into bilmore's retirement, and longer.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I see the "both for the common good" argument, but find that unpursuasive because you can make that argument for nearly everything. Hell, it can be argued that the nazi experiments were for the common good.

I think the indirect/direct payment distinction is cleaner and far more defensible. You are "robbing" from on and giving directly to "others."

You are making a distinction without meaning. Or alternatively, how is taking an additional dollar from me and spending it on a new plane that I think is unnecessary for my safety and defense, but which you believe is necessary for your safety and defense (because we evaluate and rank those risks differently) NOT robbing from me and giving directly to you?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by bilmore
I missed it, but I'm guessing you said something along the lines of "Bush really isn't an evil madman."

And you expected such blasphemy to stay?

Naif.

SS was posting about the love with Slave that dare not speaketh its name. A sad commentary to leagl's legacy here that such a progressive open statement of one poster's love for another was unceremoniously squashed. npi.