Why I Could Never Be GOP or Libertarian

[JoeNormal]

Perfect example of how you righties defend policies that make it harder for our generation to succeed. Remember you guys kept defending illegal workers because you said they were doing "jobs Americans wouldn't do?" Meanwhile they were taking over the construction industry.

But Reagan put an end to that. His 1986 amnesty program, combined with his aggressive war on organized labor (begun in 1981), in effect told both employers and non-citizens that there would be few penalties and many rewards to increasing the US labor pool (and thus driving down wages) with undocumented immigrants. A million people a year continued to come across our southern border, but they stopped returning to Latin America every fall because instead of seasonal work they were able to find permanent jobs.

The magnet drawing them? Illegal Employers.

Yet in the American media, Illegal Employers are almost never mentioned.

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.
"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."

Again, you make assumptions about me and my beliefs simply because I have an (R) after my name.

No party holds all the cards or all the correct positions. I am strongly opposed to illegals being allowed to be here. They have taken MANY jobs from me over the years. I am strongly opposed to organized labor. They too have taken many jobs from me over the years. Not only that but they have picketed me on large commercial jobs and made my job difficult when all I wanted to do was feed my family as well as the families of my employees.

No party or politician has all the answers but to completely discredit one is to close your mind to ideas that could make our lives better. You're an ideological fool.

If you are rich then you are greedy and selfish. If you are middle class and have an R next to your name, after the last 12 years, you are a fool.

I am far from rich. However most of my customers are. Funny thing is they are some of the kindest most giving people I've ever met. I even did an estimate for Claire McCaskils sister a few years back. Despite my anti Obama sticker on my company truck we had a great conversation after the bid. She was very cordial, very nice, VERY WEALTHY and even gave me a great report on angieslist despite not hiring me.

You judge people for nonsensical superficial reasons. As such I believe your close mindedness has probably limited your ability to grow as a human being.

I'm sorry for you.

I think Sealybobo is assuming that the typical republican or libertarian is like many (most?) of their ilk on this board. While I was fairly active on this site, I fell into the same trap. There are some real scumbags lurking in here and I think most people couldn't help but feel that our country or even humanity is doomed reading some of the shit that goes on here. While I don't share republican or libertarian views, in real life, most people of these persuasions are not evil.

Sealybobo, do yourself a favor and limit your exposure to this crap.

But I think the problem is that most American's don't care enough about politics to understand what the hell is going on. Not that some of us care too much. As long as I don't shoot up the opposition I think I'm being a good citizen. Involved.

I'm not accusing you of caring too much. I think it's good to understand what's going on and I have to agree with you that most Americans are easily bamboozled because they're so busy with everything else it takes to live these days. What I'm saying is that the republican/libertarian contingent here is more virulently scummy than in real life. If you don't limit your exposure to it, it will take its toll.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

To hedge risk. It actually increases the overall costs because the insurance company takes a cut. Insurance for things you can afford to pay for yourself is stupid.

 

[Norman]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

 

[Contumacious]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

PAUL "TARP" RYAN IS NOT A RANDIAN , HE IS JUST AS FASCIST AS YOU AND THE REST OF THE BUNCH.


.MEDICARE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALIST PONZI SCHEME.

FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT SCOTUS HAS RULED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE - CONGRESS CAN STOP THE BENEFITS TOMORROW AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM.

YOU ARE BETTER OFF STARTING A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT WITH FIDELITY, VANGUARD , T ROWE,.......

IT IS NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF YOU

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone? You should cancel your insurance and just paygo. Pay as you go.
And instead, save that money you are saving from not having insurance. And when you get sick, see if you've saved enough on your own.

NO NO NO! We don't want you in on our ponzi scheme. You are on your own.

Do you undesrtand the concept of a Constitutional government?

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the motherfuckers so they SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED THEIR POWERS.


UNFORTUNATELY, the Founding Fathers never dreamt that the federal judiciary would be populated by spineless corrupt government supremacist cocroaches.


.

 

[jillian]

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

fwiw, that isn't what a real libertarian thinks. nor are the anti-choice, anti-gay, pro segregation so-called "libertarians" actually libertarian. they're neo-confederate insurrectionists who are like children stamping their feet at having to live by the rules.... unless of course, the rules impose Christian dogma on people and interfere with their most personal life issues.

 

[Norman]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

PAUL "TARP" RYAN IS NOT A RANDIAN , HE IS JUST AS FASCIST AS YOU AND THE REST OF THE BUNCH.


.MEDICARE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALIST PONZI SCHEME.

FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT SCOTUS HAS RULED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE - CONGRESS CAN STOP THE BENEFITS TOMORROW AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM.

YOU ARE BETTER OFF STARTING A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT WITH FIDELITY, VANGUARD , T ROWE,.......

IT IS NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF YOU

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone? You should cancel your insurance and just paygo. Pay as you go.
And instead, save that money you are saving from not having insurance. And when you get sick, see if you've saved enough on your own.

NO NO NO! We don't want you in on our ponzi scheme. You are on your own.

Do you undesrtand the concept of a Constitutional government?

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the motherfuckers so they SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED THEIR POWERS.


UNFORTUNATELY, the Founding Fathers never dreamt that the federal judiciary would be populated by spineless corrupt government supremacist cocroaches.


.

The concept of constitutional government is also called a republic, just to make it easier for a regressive person. (And no, they don't get this concept, instead wanting a pure democracy where anything can be voted upon).

 

[jillian]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

 

[jillian]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

PAUL "TARP" RYAN IS NOT A RANDIAN , HE IS JUST AS FASCIST AS YOU AND THE REST OF THE BUNCH.


.MEDICARE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALIST PONZI SCHEME.

FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT SCOTUS HAS RULED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE - CONGRESS CAN STOP THE BENEFITS TOMORROW AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM.

YOU ARE BETTER OFF STARTING A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT WITH FIDELITY, VANGUARD , T ROWE,.......

IT IS NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF YOU

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone? You should cancel your insurance and just paygo. Pay as you go.
And instead, save that money you are saving from not having insurance. And when you get sick, see if you've saved enough on your own.

NO NO NO! We don't want you in on our ponzi scheme. You are on your own.

Do you undesrtand the concept of a Constitutional government?

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the motherfuckers so they SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED THEIR POWERS.


UNFORTUNATELY, the Founding Fathers never dreamt that the federal judiciary would be populated by spineless corrupt government supremacist cocroaches.


.

The concept of constitutional government is also called a republic, just to make it easier for a regressive person.

that doesn't make sense. can you try again, please?

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

fwiw, that isn't what a real libertarian thinks. nor are the anti-choice, anti-gay, pro segregation so-called "libertarians" actually libertarian. they're neo-confederate insurrectionists who are like children stamping their feet at having to live by the rules.... unless of course, the rules impose Christian dogma on people and interfere with their most personal life issues.

Motherfuck, I had to read the post 10 times because I could not believe that you posted something that I agree with.

Libertarian, with a capital L

 

[Norman]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

 

[jillian]

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

fwiw, that isn't what a real libertarian thinks. nor are the anti-choice, anti-gay, pro segregation so-called "libertarians" actually libertarian. they're neo-confederate insurrectionists who are like children stamping their feet at having to live by the rules.... unless of course, the rules impose Christian dogma on people and interfere with their most personal life issues.

Motherfuck, I had to read the post 10 times because I could not believe that you posted something that I agree with.

Libertarian, with a capital L

had to happen sometime.

 

[jillian]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

 

[Norman]

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? Where you spread the risk so it lowers the cost for everyone?

Nope. That's not the basic concept of insurance.

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

The basis is perfectly sound. It's arguably not an 'opinion' at all. It's basic math.

 

[jillian]

What is the concept?

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

 

[dblack]

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

How so?

 

[Norman]

The basic concepts comes from the laws of large numbers. You pool the risk so that when damage occurs an individual doesn't have to go bankrupt, thus hedging RISK (not expected cost) for everyone.

The concept doesn't make much sense if:
The damage is known to happen.
The damage has a significant chance of happening and thus the pooling is of no help.
The damage is so small that it can be paid out of pocket (there is no risk to begin with).
You can significantly influence the risk (IE the whole thing is a choice).

Obama's contraceptive "insurance" for example, violates all of these principles of proper insurance conduct. It is merely a dumb service contract. These types of contracts are known as "regressive insurance" around here. You can ponder where the name comes from.

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

Regressive people really need to get educated on what terms like "fact" "opinion" and "fallacy" mean. Fallacy doesn't mean a "fact I don't agree with". Not everything is an opinion, and not everything you don't like is a fallacy.

 

[jillian]

that's an opinion without basis.

as to the name, by whom is it "know as 'regressive insurance'?"

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

Regressive people really need to get educated on what terms like "fact" "opinion" and "fallacy" mean. Fallacy doesn't mean a "fact I don't agree with". Not everything is an opinion, and not everything you don't like is a fallacy.

it's always amusing when the ignorant "regressive" call normal people "regressive". tell me, do you even know what the word regressive means? because it certainly has no meaning in the context in which you're using it.

go back to school like a good little winger.

 

[Norman]

Aah, not this crap again. "Points a fact". "That's like uur opinionnn!" Not everything is an opinion.

To me...

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

Regressive people really need to get educated on what terms like "fact" "opinion" and "fallacy" mean. Fallacy doesn't mean a "fact I don't agree with". Not everything is an opinion, and not everything you don't like is a fallacy.

it's always amusing when the ignorant "regressive" call normal people "regressive". tell me, do you even know what the word regressive means? because it certainly has no meaning in the context in which you're using it.

go back to school like a good little winger.

Brilliant, a regressive regresses to insults as he doesn't have any facts or useful information to offer.

The term "regressive" applies to people whom asses are backwards. IE. they sacrifice concepts that work, such as logic reason truth... facts and evidence... to never ending amount of feelz and opinions. See if everything is an opinion, saying even the most retarded of things becomes justified. Which is what they are saying... and that about sums up the regressive ideology.

 

[jillian]

the magic words being "to me".... which is what makes it opinion.

Oh my gosh... I was responding to the 2nd question you asked. The rest of the post was NOT an opinion.

well, then why don't we say your basic premise is a fallacy?

Regressive people really need to get educated on what terms like "fact" "opinion" and "fallacy" mean. Fallacy doesn't mean a "fact I don't agree with". Not everything is an opinion, and not everything you don't like is a fallacy.

it's always amusing when the ignorant "regressive" call normal people "regressive". tell me, do you even know what the word regressive means? because it certainly has no meaning in the context in which you're using it.

go back to school like a good little winger.

Brilliant, a regressive regresses to insults as he doesn't have any facts or useful information to offer.

The term "regressive" applies to people whom asses are backwards. IE. they sacrifice concepts that work, such as logic reason truth... facts and evidence... to never ending amount of feelz and opinions. See if everything is an opinion, saying even the most retarded of things becomes justified. Which is what they are saying... and that about sums up the regressive ideology.

listen, i can't go back to your failed education and teach you vocabulary.

use words properly. definitions, matter, troll boy.