Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 22,893
- 17,291
- 2,415
Here we go again. Obviously there is a disconnect with respect to definitions. "Name calling" is not "exposing." See now, that's how you logically argue. This lesson is free but the next ones gonna cost you.
Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.
Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?
Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.
Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.
What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?
Abject poverty?
Rampant crime?
Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?
Urchins begging on corners?
The poor selling their children?
That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.
All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.
Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.
The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.
You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.
That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.
There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?
A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?
Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?
Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.
Answer the question.
What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?
Provide them with choices and opportunity. Not hand outs better known as pay offs and convincing them they are perpetual fucking victims of white right wingers with built in excuses.
You are a fucking miserable hack who pushes this fucking utopia and pretend to actually believe there is some system that is "fair" for everyone.
Either that, or you are too stupid to see how you are used a pawn by perpetuating the myth.
Your arguments are childish and plays on the EMOTIONS of the ignorant who seem to make more decisions based on emotion.
You fucking people are pathetic.