Parliament of Whores

[B_Enough_for_Me]

As my father, a staunch Republican, is always quick to point out, there are more millionaires in the Democrat party than the Republican party. If the Democrat bigwigs are trying to steal from the rich and give to the poor, then they're sharing their own money, more so than the Republicans. Can't have it both ways man.

Oh, you think the Democrats are playing fair? No. That is naive. They take from everybody to line their 'needy' pockets. Democrats, whether we're talking about Southern Good Ol' Boys or New York 'elites' are only interested in making themselves rich; and selling you their brand of socialism is the just the thing they need to get the job done.

I don't suppose you've heard of World Net Daily? The same "news" source which is pushing the Obama eligibility claim? The same one that the Republicans are too busy being in bed with to stop the dissolution of their party into rabid idiocy? They're still trying to play political games when the nation has enough crises to deal with. I'd say they're 10x worse than any other source used thus far in this thread.

What on Earth is your point?

By the way, I'll totally buy that a liberal news source was trying to discredit the good Senator by cropping his speech. Mudslingling happens both ways after all. Since you obviously watched the whole video though, maybe you can clear up the matter. To which "providers" was the Senator referring?

I believe you got it right on the head. Nobody knows. Well, looking past the obvious meaning of 'providers' since that term is so frequently used in reference to insurance companies and lobbyists. Maybe he meant the "lobbying providers", or maybe 'lobbyist providers" or maybe "providers of insurance." Again, for those slow members of the class, what we have here is nothing more than a leftists group bending the truth (GASP!) to further their agenda. They have done it so many times now it has lost value (Denver DNC headquarters anyone?).

 

[HazelGod]

An honest question:
Are there any right- or center-right leaning members here interested in political discussions without such puerile petulance and transparent disingenuity?

Do you honestly believe the fact of Thinkprogress hosting the CSPAN video clip somehow alters the words that came out of the senator's mouth? And you wonder why nobody takes your POV seriously...

You are making connections that are impossible to make; logically impossible. There is no way you can go from the word "providers" and end up at "lobbyists."

First, I'll disregard your moronic strawman nonsense about "providers" being the functional term. You either failed English, or you're being deliberately disingenuous...because any idiot can see that the subject of the senator's statement is "people," and that "providers" is just part of an adjective phrase describing that subject. The logical relation exists between "people" and "lobbyists."

Let's look again at the senator's words (emphasis mine):

the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here

Now, let's look at what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say about the word itself:

lobbyist
A person who is compensated for attempting to influence the opinions and decisions of government policymakers and legislators.


Quod erat demonstrandum. So much for your logical impossibility, asshat. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[B_Nick4444]

An honest question:
Are there any right- or center-right leaning members here interested in political discussions without such puerile petulance and transparent disingenuity?

yes

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Great response. If you can't force your nonsense down my throat then just ignore me.

I guess I'll spend the rest of the day questioning the foundations of my thoughts....

 

[Bbucko]

I always love how socialists see themselves:

Instead of calling it greed, it's sharing.

You aren't stealing somebody elses money, you are sharing it.

You aren't taking it, you are sharing it.

And sharing, is a virtue (now).

Great response. If you can't force your nonsense down my throat then just ignore me.

I guess I'll spend the rest of the day questioning the foundations of my thoughts....

Anyone who finds evil in the virtue of sharing could use a little introspection in my opinion.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

To roughly translate the posts of some anti-Socialistic people on this thread in words everyone can understand: It's mine, you understand? Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

Who needs Michael Moore to explain the issue in detail, when Warner Brothers covered it in a 6 minute cartoon back in 1957? YouTube - the duck goes nuts

 

[HazelGod]

Right?

Oh, brother...close sesame!

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Anyone who finds evil in the virtue of sharing could use a little introspection in my opinion.

The point, which went way over your head, is that sharing, as defined by socialism, isn't sharing at all, but a brilliant form of greed. All socialists want it to ensure that rich people don't stay rich. If we're all poor together thats fine, just so long as no one is rich while others are poor.

Sharing is fantastic. But having the government "share" my money for me isn't sharing; by definition it can't be. Hopefully, the deep thinkers here have read Marx. One of his criticisms of capitalism is that workers are alienated from the product of their work. Of course, he completely failed to see that workers in a socialist/communist state are alienated from the product of their charity.

Did you figure out my grammar yet?

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

To roughly translate the posts of some anti-Socialistic people on this thread in words everyone can understand: It's mine, you understand? Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

Who needs Michael Moore to explain the issue in detail, when Warner Brothers covered it in a 6 minute cartoon back in 1957? YouTube - the duck goes nuts

I love leftists.

Since when is it greedy to keep what is already mine? I own it. I can't be greedy for something I own.

Of course, the leftists demand that I give it up my stuff then they fail to see how they are greeding after my possessions.

 

[SilverTrain]

Since when is it greedy to keep what is already mine? I own it. I can't be greedy for something I own.

"greed:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

greed - definition of greed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Thanks ST... the dictionary wins again.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

"greed:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

greed - definition of greed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Thank you. My point stands.

You should use a better dictionary:
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

greed - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

There is nothing excessive about keeping what I have. There is also no desire to acquire what I already have.

There is no desire to acquire more than I need.

What I have is not more than I need or deserve. In fact, it is substantially less.

Of course, your definition provides some pretty insurmountable hurdles for the socialists/communists here:
They have the desire to acquire (Redistribution of wealth)

material wealth

in excess of what they deserve.
They won't work for it, earn it, or do anything more than demand it from those who did work for it or earned it.

Capitalists on the other hand want only that which they work for. A true capitalists would try to beat out the market. If they succeed then they reap the benefit, if they fail the reap the failure (which the socialists/communists don't want to redistribute).


Forum Fail.

 

[SilverTrain]

Thank you. My point stands.

You should use a better dictionary:
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

greed - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

There is nothing excessive about keeping what I have. There is also no desire to acquire what I already have.

There is no desire to acquire more than I need.

What I have is not more than I need or deserve. In fact, it is substantially less.

Of course, your definition provides some pretty insurmountable hurdles for the socialists/communists here:
They have the desire to acquire (Redistribution of wealth)

material wealth

in excess of what they deserve.
They won't work for it, earn it, or do anything more than demand it from those who did work for it or earned it.

Capitalists on the other hand want only that which they work for. A true capitalists would try to beat out the market. If they succeed then they reap the benefit, if they fail the reap the failure (which the socialists/communists don't want to redistribute).


Forum Fail.

Straw man arguments fail.

I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who's stated they want the USA to become a socialist or communist nation. Some have advocated the implentation of some programs that incorporate some socialistic components (in the vein of many other programs implemented previously and currently in the USA, as any educated person is aware).

So, the Limbaughian rhetoric fails to cut any ice, no matter how snide the manner in which it's delivered.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Or roughly translated...
I can't help it. I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby.

Mel Blanc was a genius. Daffy Duck in 2012!

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Straw man arguments fail.

I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who's stated they want the USA to become a socialist or communist nation. Some have advocated the implentation of some programs that incorporate some socialistic components (in the vein of many other programs implemented previously and currently in the USA, as any educated person is aware).

So, the Limbaughian rhetoric fails to cut any ice, no matter how snide the manner in which it's delivered.

Yeah.....

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

Or roughly translated...
I can't help it. I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby.

Mel Blanc was a genius. Daffy Duck in 2012!

Another brilliant contribution.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Another brilliant contribution.

More than you even know.
Now, do yourself a favor and continue your debate with those who care to engage you in discussion. You've lost that privilege with me when you unleashed a barricade of racial slurs at me a few weeks back, then tried to act as if you didn't do anything wrong.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

More than you even know.
Now, do yourself a favor and continue your debate with those who care to engage you in discussion. You've lost that privilege with me when you unleashed a barricade of racial slurs at me a few weeks back, then tried to act as if you didn't do anything wrong.

AAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ! ! ! !

Holy crap, Vinyl*** I'm dying over here! This is the single funniest thing I've read all week. I'm working on a prize for most amusing writing.

In particular I enjoy the end of your post.

I have to be honest, I read this, laughed my ass off, then came back 3 hours later and read it again just so I could laugh some more. Hysterical!


Edit: It would be a 'barrage' or racial slurs, not a 'barricade.'

 

[jason_els]

So just when are the people who actually know something about any of these topics supposed to weigh in?

Not when they're necessarily rich or powerful, but when they can influence elections; people with high Q. Not everyone who is powerful is rich nor is every rich person powerful. What matters is the ability to influence and that comes from opinion leaders who may or may not be rich.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You know, there are so many ways I can tell you to "eat a dick" right now, but I'll refrain. And BTW... barricade in its simplest terms means a "wall". I chose that word because the amount of times you called me a "boy" in a very negative and racist way in a previous thread. It was a statement more symbolic in nature which didn't require an asshole like yourself to try and correct.

But since you're in the mood to try and correct grammar (because in all honest you don't have anything else better to do with your life), I decided to translate your speech to further reflect your current mental condition.

Origeenally Posted by 'Nuff_fo'_Me
AAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Fry mah hide! ! Fry mah hide! ! Fry mah hide! ! Fry mah hide! ! Fry mah hide! Holy crap, Vinyl*** ah's dyin' on over hyar! Fry mah hide! This hyar is th' sin'le funniess thin' I've read all week. Shet mah mouth! ah's wawkin' on a prize fo' most amoosin' writin'. In particular ah enjoy th' end of yer post. ah have t'be honest, ah read this, laughed mah ass off, then came back 3 hours later an' read it agin jest so ah c'd laugh some mo'e. Hysterical! Fry mah hide! Edit: It'd be a 'barrage' o' racial slurs, not a 'barricade.'

And just so we can refresh your memory and everyone else's... here's the post where you've unleashed your "wall of racial insults":

Originally Posted by Enough_for_Me
Boy, I have no idea how you so blindly, and completely, ignore the obvious. Not sorta obvious, not even mostly obvious, but entirely obvious. You can make a big racial hoot-and-holler if you want, but it's going no where. You see, boy, when your name has the word 'boy' in it, and some one calls you boy, you should assume (in spite of your made up history lesson) that it is in reference to your name. Calling somebody boy is not racial, my dad called my boy hundreds of times (he must be my owner). I'm sure slave owners called their slaves all kinds of things, but they don't get to be on 'vinylBOY's list of unacceptable words that can never be used in conversation with him'. I will say 'boy,' or any variant thereof, for as long as I wish and as many times as I want. If you hear it as a racial slur than that is your problem; boy. I mean it as I mean it, not as you hear it, so get over yourself, and quit pulling the race card; it is PATHETIC!

The issue is about respect. Dad get to call you "boy" because they brought you in this world. You and I are practically the same age and you're NOT my father. Mine died when I was 6, and I can certainly say that he wasn't an ignorant bigot such as yourself. I've used "VinylBoy" as a nickname on various message boards and chat rooms for over 15 years and NOBODY was morally stupid enough to refer to me as "boy" until you and one other dimly witted people came along. So really, I don't give a fuck what you think I should imply when I see you use this word in such a negative context towards me. Who the hell are you to tell me how I should feel? Although I wouldn't have any issues with some people engaging me in similar slang, you have not earned that privilege. Keep this in mind the next time you even TRY to respond to me in such an ignorant fashion.

The crazy thing is, if I even engaged in the slurring you have, I would have been banned a long time ago. The fact that you somehow get away with it is beyond me, but I digress. Mods (again) have been notified... I'm not putting up with your bullshit this time.