Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 42

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #510 : March 23, 2013, 08:58:02 AM »

I've posted this 3 times already , but the Comrade in his desperation to discredit anyone who is not a limp-wristed nanny-stater like himself , keeps pushing the lie.  So  , here is the entire section on fascism again.  IN CONTEXT:

http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

As you can see, Mises is clearly making the case that fascism is dangerous,  and described it as a "fatal error" and "evil" . You must remember that this was written during a time when many thought fascism was proving to be a huge success. He believed that it was merely an "emergency makeshift" against the looming threat of communism and socialism as exemplified by the Bolsheviks in Russia , but doomed to failure as well.

But CBW didn't take anything out of context. Sure  , LOL. You are a dishonest prick , CBW , and a psuedo-intellectual. No wonder you are the running joke around here....


No let's get back to the REAL topic. The Comrade would hate to "derail" anything.  ::)
« : March 23, 2013, 09:01:07 AM Fire Mark Dummynik »

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #511 : March 23, 2013, 10:16:35 AM »

Anyone with half a brain can see that your non-plan to help the hungry is only going to lead to the hungry not being helped.

1. The hungry are helped every day through charity . So your point is patenly false .

My bad. Your non-plan will lead to countless hungry people not being helped, not all hungry people not being helped. Happy now, Delirious?

2. It only costs as much as the coins we can find under the cushions , remember ?? What's the problem ?

There is no problem. That's kinda my point, genius. You're the one arguing that there's a problem, remember?

3.   Anyone with half a brain knows that if we can only help those in need through force , we are doomed as a race regardless.

Really? You are shrooming, dude. I'd venture to guess that all those "doomed, nanny state" societies of Western Europe will survive much longer than this country will with it's cluster f**k of a government that prizes corporate greed over the welfare of it's citizenry. We are doomed as a race if governments feed their poor? Wow. There are no words to describe that degree of idiocy and detachment from reality.

Although Illum would probably make the case that this is simply survival of the fittest, natural selection making the race stronger by weeding out the weak and stupid of the herd.....bad news for people like you who need thier hand held.

"POPPA ILLUM, POPPA ILLUM!!!"


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #512 : March 23, 2013, 11:02:18 AM »

So,  when you used that quote , and left out the part when Mises said fascism is "evil" and a "fatal error" ( in the same article , and in some cases the same SENTENCE ) , you weren't taking anything out of context right ??

Nope.

Quote from: Ludwig von Mises
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

If you read von Mises essay in it's entirety, he is saying that as a long-term institution, fascism is inadequate. He is not rebuking fascism, you nitwit. He is merely pointing out the deficiencies of fascism as a lasting institution, but does suggest that it has earned itself merit for "saving European civilization" in the short term. He is saying that rightist dictatorships are wrong, but if they are combating something worse, such as leftist governments or leftist propaganda, then they are okay for the period it takes to stamp out opposing viewpoints, and then you should get rid of them.

And you might have had a slither of justification for your characterization of the marriage between Libertarianism and fascism if the association had ended with von Mises. Unfortunately for you, it didn't.

Quote from: Friedrich Hayek
As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government.

If you take Hayek's statements at face value, he is saying that in some cases, fascism is a necessary transitional phase towards economic liberty. He is suggesting that economic liberalism implemented by dictatorial force is more preferable to a democratically elected leftist government that does not implement economic liberal principles.

Now, the way in which you can get yourself out of this mess you have put yourself in is to simply admit that, while they ultimately wished to see a society free of government coercion, they supported fascism as a bridge towards achieving that end. They opposed it as a long-term institution, but supported it as a temporary one. There is no other way in which to interpret their words, no other "context" to put them in that would suggest that they were diametrically opposed to fascism in any and every since.

But of course, you will never admit this, because doing so would open you up to being exposed as a hypocrite. So instead, you dance around the issue like Baryshnikov, and try and shift focus away from their complimentary words on fascism by pointing out their critical words on it, as if that means that the compliments never happened. I wish I could say that you are simply willfully ignorant, but I think it's safe to say that that is not the case.

You are a pathetic liar.
« : March 23, 2013, 11:20:32 AM CBWx2 »


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #513 : March 23, 2013, 02:58:36 PM »

The article is there for whoever wants to read it  .  You are fooling no one but yourself , dumb ass.  The spin can end here....back to topic of food stamps.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #514 : March 23, 2013, 03:48:39 PM »

I am fooling no one but myself

Couldn't agree more, you precocious little scamp.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #515 : March 23, 2013, 04:22:42 PM »



My bad. Your non-plan will lead to countless hungry people not being helped, not all hungry people not being helped. Happy now, Delirious?

As does any plan . However , I have a feeling the amount of people left to die on the street would be a lot less than you are claiming it would. Especially since you yourself admitted the cost of feeding them is no more than the "money we find under our seat cushions" .  We already lead the world in charitable donations. There is no shortage of people in this country who already feel the need to help voluntarily , whether you are stealing money from thier paycheck for the same purpose or not.

Quote
Really? You are shrooming, dude. I'd venture to guess that all those "doomed, nanny state" societies of Western Europe will survive much longer than this country will with it's cluster f**k of a government that prizes corporate greed over the welfare of it's citizenry. We are doomed as a race if governments feed their poor? Wow. There are no words to describe that degree of idiocy and detachment from reality.

Corporate welfare is no better than any other welfare , you'll get no argument here.  The point , which you were too stupid to grasp , was that if we as a species are so cruel , greedy , and uncaring that we would starve one another unless forced at the point of a gun to do otherwise , then we are fundamentaly flawed as a species , and it's all going to come crashing down eventually anyways.  There's plenty of proof to show we do try to help those around us willingly , if given the chance.


Would my way be perfect ?? No. Am I claiming the ticket to Utopia ?? No.  I'm not even claiming it would be easier , because with freedom comes much more responsibility . I'm simply claiming it is RIGHT. Even if I am over-estimating what a free people are capable of, and a society can't thrive without an over-bearing government to social engineer every aspect of thier lives  , I would still choose to be free.  To suffer under my own decisions , rather than to be stuck under the coercive yoke of nanny-state cowards like yourself. It's the spirit of America as far as I'm concerned.

Sam Adams said it best:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”


In short , piss off you socialist piece of trash.
« : March 23, 2013, 04:26:50 PM Fire Mark Dummynik »

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3112
Online
« #516 : March 23, 2013, 04:48:40 PM »


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #517 : March 23, 2013, 06:06:51 PM »


or to justify ending the program, which is of course the ultimate goal that very few of them will openly admit.

Funny that the only person to have mentioned this is you.

I am beginning to sense a touch of bitterness.

I may have been one of the few that has mentioned it (not the only. Delirious Smurf is basically owning it. I at least give him credit for that), but it's certainly not because I'm bitter. It's because I can read between the lines.

You say on one hand that the government is immorally taxing it's citizenry, incompetent, and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector, and then on the other hand suggest that your criticism of their handling of food assistance is not aimed at eliminating the program? Those two positions are at odds with one another. Either you believe it is the government's job to assist the poor and hungry or you do not. What you all are doing is talking out of both sides of your mouth rather than owning the fact that you do not believe that the government should assist the poor and hungry.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Online
« #518 : March 23, 2013, 06:59:11 PM »

You say  . . . that the government is  . .  incompetent, and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector, and then on the other hand suggest that your criticism of their handling of food assistance is not aimed at eliminating the program? Those two positions are at odds with one another.

HUH?

The government is not "incompetent and incapable of doing anything  as well as the private sector." The government does well providing for the national defense.

The problem arises when the FEDERAL government moves in to offer services because the service provider does not operate under a profit motive and becomes the mechanism for social welfare and becomes an inefficient behemoth.  That is why you have, as an example, the Postal Service where the private sector has FedEx, UPS, etc.

Food Stamps and programs like it struggle in the eyes of  many because even though noble in concept it is awful in practice.  Part of that is due to your liberal brethren who use food stamps (and similar social welfare programs) as a means to garner votes (btw, what's that whole joint Mexican-American food stamp program? lol).   

All AID should be AID -- which means it is temporary in nature. And it only makes sense that one would try to get the fraud out of the system -- that is, if the goal is truly to help as many needy people as possible - because fraud robs AID from the needy, right?  Private sector companies try to prevent fraud because it impacts profit.  What incentive do federal government programs have to do the same IF their budgets are automatically growing every year.  This disconnect from regular market dynamics makes the federal government VERY INEFFICIENT in taking money from its citizens just to redistribute it to its citizen, hence the massive federal government we have now.

Lastly  . . . note your (liberal) choice of language and the fear tactic, here it is:  " aimed at eliminating the program"  Who cares about THE PROGRAM?  The point is the aid.  Well, the point for people other than you and people that share your mindset  . . . . .because THE PROGRAM is arguably more important that the aid . . . .  right?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #519 : March 23, 2013, 11:22:33 PM »

As does any plan . However , I have a feeling the amount of people left to die on the street would be a lot less than you are claiming it would. Especially since you yourself admitted the cost of feeding them is no more than the "money we find under our seat cushions" We already lead the world in charitable donations. There is no shortage of people in this country who already feel the need to help voluntarily , whether you are stealing money from their paycheck for the same purpose or not.

Corporate welfare is no better than any other welfare , you'll get no argument here.  The point , which you were too stupid to grasp , was that if we as a species are so cruel , greedy , and uncaring that we would starve one another unless forced at the point of a gun to do otherwise , then we are fundamentaly flawed as a species , and it's all going to come crashing down eventually anyways.  There's plenty of proof to show we do try to help those around us willingly , if given the chance.

Here's the thing, you mindless jackass; the Salvation Army, that shining example of a private institution that will fill the void of caring for the poor if the government was to get out of the business of doing so, receives government funding to help keep it's doors open.

In fact, just about every privately run non-profit aimed at assisting the poor relies on some form of government assistance, and just about all of them would have to close their doors or drastically decrease aid if they didn't get it.

Would my way be perfect ?? No. Am I claiming the ticket to Utopia ?? No.  I'm not even claiming it would be easier , because with freedom comes much more responsibility . I'm simply claiming it is RIGHT.

You have a very interesting perspective of what is right and wrong. It is forceful, immoral, and akin to slavery for a government to tax it's citizenry and use the funds to provide food and shelter to the poor, yet it is moral and just for a government to sit idly by and allow the poor to starve and be homeless unless some private company steps in to help, which may or may not happen.

Here's the thing, you Libertarians aren't inventing the wheel here, moron. We tried it your way. People didn't like seeing food surpluses sitting on the shelves and going bad while you had people a block away starving. Apparently, that was seen as slightly more immoral and unjust than simply using tax dollars to make sure that the poor and hungry were fed, which is why the program was developed to begin with. Contrary to your conservative paranoia, social programs didn't spring up because some nefarious government super committee dreamed them up as a means of secretly enslaving it's populace. They sprung up because there was a need that was not being seen to by the private sector, and the people lobbied their government to fill that void.

I find it laughable that you can sit here and say something so arrogantly clueless like you would be willing to "suffer under your own decisions", as if you would in any way be negatively affected by the abolishment of social programs that assist the needy. You can make this idiotic, meaningless claim because you know damn well that you would not be, only others would. That doesn't make you brave. It makes you a selfish, clueless, arrogant, cowardice prick.

Sam Adams said it best:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”


In short , piss off you socialist piece of trash.

Interesting that you would use that quote in this discussion. And here I thought you were so big on "context" these days...


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #520 : March 23, 2013, 11:28:01 PM »

You say  . . . that the government is  . .  incompetent, and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector, and then on the other hand suggest that your criticism of their handling of food assistance is not aimed at eliminating the program? Those two positions are at odds with one another.

HUH?

The government is not "incompetent and incapable of doing anything  as well as the private sector." The government does well providing for the national defense.

The problem arises when the FEDERAL government moves in to offer services because the service provider does not operate under a profit motive and becomes the mechanism for social welfare and becomes an inefficient behemoth.  That is why you have, as an example, the Postal Service where the private sector has FedEx, UPS, etc.

Food Stamps and programs like it struggle in the eyes of  many because even though noble in concept it is awful in practice.  Part of that is due to your liberal brethren who use food stamps (and similar social welfare programs) as a means to garner votes (btw, what's that whole joint Mexican-American food stamp program? lol).   

All AID should be AID -- which means it is temporary in nature. And it only makes sense that one would try to get the fraud out of the system -- that is, if the goal is truly to help as many needy people as possible - because fraud robs AID from the needy, right?  Private sector companies try to prevent fraud because it impacts profit.  What incentive do federal government programs have to do the same IF their budgets are automatically growing every year.  This disconnect from regular market dynamics makes the federal government VERY INEFFICIENT in taking money from its citizens just to redistribute it to its citizen, hence the massive federal government we have now.

Lastly  . . . note your (liberal) choice of language and the fear tactic, here it is:  " aimed at eliminating the program"  Who cares about THE PROGRAM?  The point is the aid.  Well, the point for people other than you and people that share your mindset  . . . . .because THE PROGRAM is arguably more important that the aid . . . .  right?

So you basically wrote a diatribe to call me out in which you unwittingly admitted that I am right? No one ever accused you of being the sharpest knife in the drawer there, huh Vinny?
« : March 23, 2013, 11:31:56 PM CBWx2 »


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #521 : March 24, 2013, 08:33:15 AM »

Just a little more than you can find "under the seat of your cushions" :



...and look it steadily goes up  :




How is this possible !!! I thought only the Comrade and his socialist mob care about giving , and in order to "give" they will TAKE - by force - or we all die in the streets . So says the Comrade. So bend over and enjoy it , you simply don't know what's good for you.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #522 : March 24, 2013, 02:29:09 PM »

Just a little more than you can find "under the seat of your cushions" :



...and look it steadily goes up  :




How is this possible !!! I thought only the Comrade and his socialist mob care about giving , and in order to "give" they will TAKE - by force - or we all die in the streets . So says the Comrade. So bend over and enjoy it , you simply don't know what's good for you.

LOL! What in the smelly hell is this nonsense supposed to be proving, you nincompoop?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #523 : March 24, 2013, 02:48:53 PM »

That billions upon billions are already donated by people , of thier own free will , outside of any government coercion. Your suggestion that charity is simply a fairy tale that can't possibly help many people couldn't be more wrong.

About 4 times as much money is raised in charity than it takes to fund your precious food stamp program.  "Coins under the cushions" for the charitable givers , you might say.

Now I leave you to return to your smelly hell. But 1st I must ask you ....

U mad , comrade ?


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #524 : March 24, 2013, 07:31:44 PM »

That billions upon billions are already donated by people , of thier own free will , outside of any government coercion. Your suggestion that charity is simply a fairy tale that can't possibly help many people couldn't be more wrong.

About 4 times as much money is raised in charity than it takes to fund your precious food stamp program.  "Coins under the cushions" for the charitable givers , you might say.

Over a third of that went towards religious tithing, you imbecile. Who knows what percentage of that went towards feeding the hungry, or towards building a bunch of mega-churches somewhere in the Bible Belt. Only 9.1% of it, 26.5 billion, went towards Human Service Organizations, which I can only assume includes organizations that specifically target feeding the hungry. You've proven nothing, other than to reaffirm the fact that you lack basic comprehension skills.
« : March 24, 2013, 07:33:29 PM CBWx2 »

  Page: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 42
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools