Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but...

[Shogun]

This will probably be the dumbest fucking thread I will read today. Catholic Charities decided to bail when the gov didnt' let them get away with marginalizing gays. Same with the Salvation Army. If pussy ass Ceo's who ran their fucking company into the ground don't like salary caps then let them use their own fucking money to stay afloat instead of tax money.


seriously. this is a RETARDED thread.

 

[Sinatra]

It should be noted that the term "straw man" has been so overused it is now itself a straw man.

 

[Father Time]

It should be noted that the term "straw man" has been so overused it is now itself a straw man.

So are we going to have to invent a straw man paradox now?

 

[Againsheila]

This will probably be the dumbest fucking thread I will read today. Catholic Charities decided to bail when the gov didnt' let them get away with marginalizing gays. Same with the Salvation Army. If pussy ass Ceo's who ran their fucking company into the ground don't like salary caps then let them use their own fucking money to stay afloat instead of tax money.


seriously. this is a RETARDED thread.

What you didn't see "Why is this pilot being called a hero?"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This will probably be the dumbest fucking thread I will read today. Catholic Charities decided to bail when the gov didnt' let them get away with marginalizing gays. Same with the Salvation Army. If pussy ass Ceo's who ran their fucking company into the ground don't like salary caps then let them use their own fucking money to stay afloat instead of tax money.


seriously. this is a RETARDED thread.

'Catholic Charities began to bail when the government didn't let them get away with marginalizing queers?'

ROFL... OH GOD! that's precious...

First, try (to the extent of your intellectual means... and we'll pray that you haven't peaked in the post to which this is responding...) to explain the correlation of your expressed sentiment, to the relevant issue.

Second, the normalization of queerdom, to which you refer, has, and was predicted BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, turned into a CATASTROPHE for the Catholic Church and the thousands of little boys that were molested by those queers... It turns out that placing sexual deviants into positions of moral leadership is something well south of "UNADVISABLE."

Third, it is HILARIOUS that you, a self declared advocate of adult/child sex and a queer yourself would overtly lament a point which speaks to UPHOLDING CULTURUAL STANDARDS by holding individuals accountable for their personal failures; particulularly where the government encouraged the lowering of the standards because of a government subsidy WHICH RESULTED IN DISASTER, sourcing a circumstance WHICH ONLY SERVES TO VALIDATE THAT POINT!

Homosexuals that engage in unspeakably risky behavior; behavior which makes SMOKERS by contrast seem like health FANATICS... who then come running to the government, DEMANDING to FIRST have their bodies healed from the virus which they risked contracting through their overtly risky behavior and THEN DEMAND THAT THE BEHAVIOR BE NORMALIZED... are a perfect example of THOSE WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.

Now friends... JUST RECALL THE OUTRAGE where th some DARED to suggest that the government require BY LAW that homosexuals infected with HIV be quarantined...

Were these people not accepting a government bailout predicated by their desire to SURVIVE? Of course they were... HAD they not KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN BEHAVIOR WHICH LEAD TO THEIR CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES? WAS THE GOVERNMENT MONEY WHICH PROVIDED THEIR HEALTHCARE NOT TAX PAYER MONEY in many, if not MOST, circumstances, particularly the tens og thousands who fell to their states MEDICAID, which in many cases was and remains to this day subsidized by Federal funds?

Yet the left is not DEMANDING that these people's activity be limited because they're on the dole... recieving tax payer funded assistance. N'er a PEEP! And to be sure, as noted above any and all suggestions that they SHOULD BE... FOR THE SAME REASONS WHICH THE LEFT NOW RATIONALIZES IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THE CORPORATIONS... was met with UNBRIDLED OUTRAGE by the queer community and their sychophant promoters on the left.

Now the distinction here is that the money which is being priovided to these Corporations are LOANS! LOANS which are to be RE-PAID should the corporation survive; and which must be repaid by their assigns in the event that they merge with or are purchased by another...

No such stipulation is being attached or is even being DISCUSSED being attached to SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS.... Yet the left DEMANDS that because the Federal government is providing assistance that they must comply with leftist demands, restricting their behavior; demands which will invevitably encumber their means to repay the loans by reducing their freedom and their potential productivty...

And again... notice how the thread dried right up... Now if the left or their Centrist sychophants thought for a SECOND that their position was being shown to be correct and true by this duscussion it would be 12 pages long by this time.

But the simple and incontestable fact is, that the Left's position here is proving to be untenable... thus, as if their habit, they've all become FASCINATED with other topics.

ROFL... Leftists...

 

[editec]

Corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are legal entities which exist at the pleasure of the CITIZENS of this nation.

If a corporation is being bailed out by the CITIZENS of this nation, the CITIZENS have the right to impose pay caps, or for that fucking matter, any god damned thing THE CITIZENS choose on them.

If these legal entities don't like those rules then they are free not to take the American CITIZENS' largess.

OH! I see... I never really thought about that... So you're saying then that a "Citizen" is NOT a legal entity? "

Now I understand why you are such a asskissing tool.

You clearly must be retarded to think that your strawman misreading has anything to do with what I'd written.

 

[editec]

It should be noted that the term "straw man" has been so overused it is now itself a straw man.

Except when it an accurate description of the technique being used, of course.

In Pubies case as above it surely is.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are legal entities which exist at the pleasure of the CITIZENS of this nation.

If a corporation is being bailed out by the CITIZENS of this nation, the CITIZENS have the right to impose pay caps, or for that fucking matter, any god damned thing THE CITIZENS choose on them.

If these legal entities don't like those rules then they are free not to take the American CITIZENS' largess.

OH! I see... I never really thought about that... So you're saying then that a "Citizen" is NOT a legal entity? "

Now I understand why you are such a asskissing tool.

You clearly must be retarded to think that your strawman misreading has anything to do with what I'd written.

So I misrepresented what you said?

Interesting?

I thought you said what I quoted word for word... where you declared that "Corporations are NOT Citizens"... then went on to define corporations as specific legal entities... declaring that Citizens pay taxes and because Citizens were distinct from the specific legal entities of Corporations and that this somehow translated into them being able to infringe upon the rights of those citizens who comprised those corporations, who also pay taxes, as both CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS...


All I did was to point out some facts which either escaped you, or that you intentionally sought to avoid:

First "CITIZEN is also a specific legal entity...

Second Corporations are specific legal entities which are comprised of CITIZENS and that just because a CITIZEN is NOT a member of A GIVEN CORPORATION, this is NOT a valid argument for infringing upon their rights... Rights to say... determine the value of the product of their labor, for instance.

Third, THAT WHERE A CITIZEN WHO IS A PART OF A CORPORATION CAN BE SAID TO BE SUBJECT TO INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR RIGHTS AS A RESULT OF TAKING A LOAN FROM THE GOVERNMENT; BY WAY OF ASSISTING THAT CORPORATION AND THE CITIZENS OF WHICH IT IS COMPRISED FROM DIFFICULTIES THROUGH THE TAX DOLLARS OF CITIZENS: DIFFICULTIES WHICH THEY ARE EXPERIENCING THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT OR IN PART THROUGH COMPLIANCE WITH LEFT-THINK REGUALTIONS; THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THAT REASONING FROM THOSE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WHO TAKE ASSISTANCE FROM THAT SAME POOL OF TAX MONEY (The Government) BUT WHO DO SO WITH ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTIONS OF EVER PAYING THAT MONEY BACK...

I was just pointing out the inherent idiocy of your position...


Now, when someone (you, for instance) 'misinterprets' my position, I like to take the time to show where and how that position was 'misinterpreted'...

Which I can't help but to notice that you opted to not do so, and to stand on your baseless inference instead...

Can ya explain how that's workin for ya? I mean I know that it's a depserate fallacious appeal to your perception that your position will be popularly accepted... but in terms of advancing a coherent, intellectual sound, logically valid argument... which will be judged by an objective third party, how's that serving your interests?

And if ya can... would take the time to explain where you see my having misinterpreted your position?

(The answer in both contexts is: NO)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

I say you're mostly an angry not especially well informed troll.

First of you you claim to speak for the left more than any person on this board as in:

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity

Now, I do not know a single liberal who has ever said that they hate Christian charity.

And lad?

Neither do you.

Really?

Well let's first define 'hate'...

hate [hayt]
v (past and past participle hat·ed, present participle hat·ing, 3rd person present singular hates)
1. vt dislike somebody or something intensely: to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feelings of anger, hostility, or animosity


Now let's take a look at some who have expressed such...
"I hate Christianity

I've had enough with Christianity. I've had enough with God. ...

Religion has long been used as a tool of the Government for a long time, and has many different uses, just like one of those multi-purpose screwdrivers from Home-Depot. It can be used to give hope to an otherwise hopeless group of poverty-stricken peasants, justify a war, or provide support to a Government's policy that is wanted passed (eg. gay marriage), just to name a few."
http://www.ubersite.com/m/54310


"i hate christianityfor all who proclaim themselves atheist. for anyone who hates the christian "god." for anyone that thinks that christianity is a virus that replicates "
i hate christianity | Xanga Blogrings | Xanga.com - The Blogging Community


The Coming Christian Hate
Daily Kos: The Coming Christian Hate


Resolved QuestionShow me another »
Why do I hate Christianity so much?
I know this isn't the Inquisition. All of that happened 600 years ago. Christians aren't burning and torturing people for daring to criticize their religion. Not anymore. But I feel so persecuted. I feel like I'm constantly being beaten over the head with a cross.
Why do I hate Christianity so much? - Yahoo! Answers

If that's not sufficient... head over to the Democrat Underground and start a thread which advocates for Christianity... Here's what will happen... you'll get slew of profanity laced retorts and you'll be banned in short order.

Christianity contests leftism in total... One cannot be a Christian and a leftist. Oh Sure one can mouth Christianity and advocate for leftist policy... The left likes to project the erroneous notion that Capitalism is anti-Charity... that it leaves the poor and infirmed behind... It's a lie... Nothing on earth has helped more poor and infirmed than Capitalism... and Capitalism: Defined as the 'free exchange and goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... is in perfect harmony with Christianity.

To even suggest that there is not a visceral hatred of Christianity inherent in the ideological left is symptomatic of delusion...

 

[Gun Clingin']

As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care. But if they use my tax money then my standards must be met.

You actually think you control how your tax dollars are spent or that the government cares about whether you approve of how they spend them? LOL!

 

[Shogun]

This will probably be the dumbest fucking thread I will read today. Catholic Charities decided to bail when the gov didnt' let them get away with marginalizing gays. Same with the Salvation Army. If pussy ass Ceo's who ran their fucking company into the ground don't like salary caps then let them use their own fucking money to stay afloat instead of tax money.


seriously. this is a RETARDED thread.

'Catholic Charities began to bail when the government didn't let them get away with marginalizing queers?'

ROFL... OH GOD! that's precious...

First, try (to the extent of your intellectual means... and we'll pray that you haven't peaked in the post to which this is responding...) to explain the correlation of your expressed sentiment, to the relevant issue.

Second, the normalization of queerdom, to which you refer, has, and was predicted BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, turned into a CATASTROPHE for the Catholic Church and the thousands of little boys that were molested by those queers... It turns out that placing sexual deviants into positions of moral leadership is something well south of "UNADVISABLE."

Third, it is HILARIOUS that you, a self declared advocate of adult/child sex and a queer yourself would overtly lament a point which speaks to UPHOLDING CULTURUAL STANDARDS by holding individuals accountable for their personal failures; particulularly where the government encouraged the lowering of the standards because of a government subsidy WHICH RESULTED IN DISASTER, sourcing a circumstance WHICH ONLY SERVES TO VALIDATE THAT POINT!

Homosexuals that engage in unspeakably risky behavior; behavior which makes SMOKERS by contrast seem like health FANATICS... who then come running to the government, DEMANDING to FIRST have their bodies healed from the virus which they risked contracting through their overtly risky behavior and THEN DEMAND THAT THE BEHAVIOR BE NORMALIZED... are a perfect example of THOSE WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.

Now friends... JUST RECALL THE OUTRAGE where th some DARED to suggest that the government require BY LAW that homosexuals infected with HIV be quarantined...

Were these people not accepting a government bailout predicated by their desire to SURVIVE? Of course they were... HAD they not KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN BEHAVIOR WHICH LEAD TO THEIR CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES? WAS THE GOVERNMENT MONEY WHICH PROVIDED THEIR HEALTHCARE NOT TAX PAYER MONEY in many, if not MOST, circumstances, particularly the tens og thousands who fell to their states MEDICAID, which in many cases was and remains to this day subsidized by Federal funds?

Yet the left is not DEMANDING that these people's activity be limited because they're on the dole... recieving tax payer funded assistance. N'er a PEEP! And to be sure, as noted above any and all suggestions that they SHOULD BE... FOR THE SAME REASONS WHICH THE LEFT NOW RATIONALIZES IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THE CORPORATIONS... was met with UNBRIDLED OUTRAGE by the queer community and their sychophant promoters on the left.

Now the distinction here is that the money which is being priovided to these Corporations are LOANS! LOANS which are to be RE-PAID should the corporation survive; and which must be repaid by their assigns in the event that they merge with or are purchased by another...

No such stipulation is being attached or is even being DISCUSSED being attached to SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS.... Yet the left DEMANDS that because the Federal government is providing assistance that they must comply with leftist demands, restricting their behavior; demands which will invevitably encumber their means to repay the loans by reducing their freedom and their potential productivty...

And again... notice how the thread dried right up... Now if the left or their Centrist sychophants thought for a SECOND that their position was being shown to be correct and true by this duscussion it would be 12 pages long by this time.

But the simple and incontestable fact is, that the Left's position here is proving to be untenable... thus, as if their habit, they've all become FASCINATED with other topics.

ROFL... Leftists...

*yawn*

did you say something?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This will probably be the dumbest fucking thread I will read today. Catholic Charities decided to bail when the gov didnt' let them get away with marginalizing gays. Same with the Salvation Army. If pussy ass Ceo's who ran their fucking company into the ground don't like salary caps then let them use their own fucking money to stay afloat instead of tax money.


seriously. this is a RETARDED thread.

'Catholic Charities began to bail when the government didn't let them get away with marginalizing queers?'

ROFL... OH GOD! that's precious...

First, try (to the extent of your intellectual means... and we'll pray that you haven't peaked in the post to which this is responding...) to explain the correlation of your expressed sentiment, to the relevant issue.

Second, the normalization of queerdom, to which you refer, has, and was predicted BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, turned into a CATASTROPHE for the Catholic Church and the thousands of little boys that were molested by those queers... It turns out that placing sexual deviants into positions of moral leadership is something well south of "UNADVISABLE."

Third, it is HILARIOUS that you, a self declared advocate of adult/child sex and a queer yourself would overtly lament a point which speaks to UPHOLDING CULTURUAL STANDARDS by holding individuals accountable for their personal failures; particulularly where the government encouraged the lowering of the standards because of a government subsidy WHICH RESULTED IN DISASTER, sourcing a circumstance WHICH ONLY SERVES TO VALIDATE THAT POINT!

Homosexuals that engage in unspeakably risky behavior; behavior which makes SMOKERS by contrast seem like health FANATICS... who then come running to the government, DEMANDING to FIRST have their bodies healed from the virus which they risked contracting through their overtly risky behavior and THEN DEMAND THAT THE BEHAVIOR BE NORMALIZED... are a perfect example of THOSE WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.

Now friends... JUST RECALL THE OUTRAGE where th some DARED to suggest that the government require BY LAW that homosexuals infected with HIV be quarantined...

Were these people not accepting a government bailout predicated by their desire to SURVIVE? Of course they were... HAD they not KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN BEHAVIOR WHICH LEAD TO THEIR CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES? WAS THE GOVERNMENT MONEY WHICH PROVIDED THEIR HEALTHCARE NOT TAX PAYER MONEY in many, if not MOST, circumstances, particularly the tens og thousands who fell to their states MEDICAID, which in many cases was and remains to this day subsidized by Federal funds?

Yet the left is not DEMANDING that these people's activity be limited because they're on the dole... recieving tax payer funded assistance. N'er a PEEP! And to be sure, as noted above any and all suggestions that they SHOULD BE... FOR THE SAME REASONS WHICH THE LEFT NOW RATIONALIZES IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THE CORPORATIONS... was met with UNBRIDLED OUTRAGE by the queer community and their sychophant promoters on the left.

Now the distinction here is that the money which is being priovided to these Corporations are LOANS! LOANS which are to be RE-PAID should the corporation survive; and which must be repaid by their assigns in the event that they merge with or are purchased by another...

No such stipulation is being attached or is even being DISCUSSED being attached to SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS.... Yet the left DEMANDS that because the Federal government is providing assistance that they must comply with leftist demands, restricting their behavior; demands which will invevitably encumber their means to repay the loans by reducing their freedom and their potential productivty...

And again... notice how the thread dried right up... Now if the left or their Centrist sychophants thought for a SECOND that their position was being shown to be correct and true by this duscussion it would be 12 pages long by this time.

But the simple and incontestable fact is, that the Left's position here is proving to be untenable... thus, as if their habit, they've all become FASCINATED with other topics.

ROFL... Leftists...

*yawn*

did you say something?

Nothing within your limited means to comprehend... I just discredited you, your most closely held feelings and the full scope and ramifications inherent in your 'sexuality'...
that's all.

Isn't it absolutely AMAZING how there idiots are consistently incapable of supporting A WORD THEY SAY? A fact which they seem to take as a point of pride... of course how much stock can ya really put into that in which an imbecile finds pride?

 

[Shogun]

YOU would think that hot air from your cheap whistle amounts to "discrediting" someone. No one else cares about your ranting. I know I don't. Besides, you couldn't discredit a monkey in a turd tossing olympic event, dude.

Now, excuse me as I laugh AT you and not WITH you..