quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
No, because it's taxpayer money, and GD represents a sample of said taxpayers. You're only given back what was taken - a refund, so to speak. Ideally, you would spread the money over every single taxpayer, but that's impractical, so restraining it to GD will suffice.

---

Actually I would. Spreading my $$ around (aka spreading the wealth) is a part Socialism, and I am against all parts of Socialism. "Do it yourself" is just another way of saying "I'm against Socialism". So, "spreading the wealth" around GD would go against my anti-Socialism stance.

quote:

---

Certainly. You're entitled to a percentage just like everyone else. The rest you divvy up.

---

Since I am anti-Socialism, why would I divvy up any $$$ that I earn, or am given, amongst a group of people who did nothing more than elect an incompetent, flip-flopping, cookie cutter politician?

quote:

---

Sounds great. I'm not part of the left and I'm not complaining about anything except you (which has nothing to do with politics). So according to your own criteria, I suppose that means you can stop complaining now, doesn't it?

---

Good point, but no. I said I will stop complaining about what I don't like when the left stops complaining about what they don't like. That means that my criteria for not complaining about what I don't like is the left not complaint about what they don't like. And since you, according to you, are not part of the left, my criteria has not been met.

quote:

---

Oh yes, and ironically, it's genius, not "genious." And I'm pretty sure that's a blatant misspelling, not a typo.

---

And you're point is.....?

quote:

---

I'm glad to hear about the donation to charity. Personally, I think there should be significantly more taxpayer input on where money goes. If that were the case, I think there'd be a lot less waste and a lot more spending on meaningful things. Granted, this isn't as perfect a situation as returning the money to its rightful owners pre-taxation, but it's a solution none the less.

---

Unfortunately that will never happen. Building the F-22 (yes I know we're not building it anymore which is stupid but that's another argument for another day) in 46 states makes far more sence to the US government than being smart with the taxpayer's money.

quote:

---

As for the co-pays, however ....tsk tsk. Using taxpayer money for individual healthcare? Sounds pretty far left to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
I am against all parts of Socialism.

---

Out of curiosity, do you have any reason for this stance, or is it just what you've inherited?

EDIT: Proof that the Canadian media was unfair to Dion, and actively propagated Conservative propaganda.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Actually I would. Spreading my $$ around (aka spreading the wealth) is a part Socialism, and I am against all parts of Socialism. "Do it yourself" is just another way of saying "I'm against Socialism". So, "spreading the wealth" around GD would go against my anti-Socialism stance.

---

If your definition of socialism is the government giving the people any money or services that cost money, you need to do a serious reality check. Almost any government program ever fits this definition, so unless you consider yourself an anarchist, you're going to have to put up with a bit of "socialism." But you don't actually have to worry about that in this case because it's not socialism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Since I am anti-Socialism, why would I divvy up any $$$ that I earn, or am given, amongst a group of people who did nothing more than elect an incompetent, flip-flopping, cookie cutter politician?

---

Because it's their money. You are completely missing the point and if you don't understand it after this post I'm going to stop discussing this intelligently with you and let Bugger and pyr0 take over with insults. The $250 (or whatever amount you received) originated from the taxpayers. GD is a sample of taxpayers. Thus, if you want to reverse the policy because you disagree with it, then returning the money to its place of origin is the only logical course of action. It's NOT SOCIALISM because it was their money in the first place.

On the issue of the incompetent, flip-floppy politician, I don't see at all how this is relevant to the issue. Obama is giving people $250 in the mail. Bush gave people $200 tax cuts. Sure, there's a technical difference, but you end up with the same amount of money in both cases, so why are you dead-set against one but not the other?

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Good point, but no. I said I will stop complaining about what I don't like when the left stops complaining about what they don't like. That means that my criteria for not complaining about what I don't like is the left not complaint about what they don't like. And since you, according to you, are not part of the left, my criteria has not been met.

---

I guess you'll be whining forever then, because I doubt there will ever be a day when someone from some political party isn't complaining about something. In any case, though, you'd better start coming up with an alternative solution to all your complaints. Saying "MAN I HATE THIS STIMULUS .... but I'll use the money" is like saying "ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ... but I'll get one anyway." Clearly, this stimulus issue isn't that big of a deal to you - otherwise, you'd be doing something real about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Unfortunately that will never happen. Building the F-22 (yes I know we're not building it anymore which is stupid but that's another argument for another day) in 46 states makes far more sence to the US government than being smart with the taxpayer's money.

---

I'm confused. What are you talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Since I am a taxpayer, aren't I getting my own money back? And if I'm getting my own money back, aren't I using my money to pay my own medical bill? And if the VA takes the money out themselves (which will probably happen because I'm behind. $24 adds up when you have to miss a few payments because of a damn raccoon), wouldn't the VA be the one using taxpayer money for individual healthcare?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
I am against all parts of Socialism.

---

So you're against the post office, public schools, public libraries, public roads, municipal utilities such as energy grids, water, gas pipes, and sewage, public police and fire departments, public health care, and state-sponsored militaries, right?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Actually I would. Spreading my $$ around (aka spreading the wealth) is a part Socialism, and I am against all parts of Socialism. "Do it yourself" is just another way of saying "I'm against Socialism". So, "spreading the wealth" around GD would go against my anti-Socialism stance.

---

Your theory is valid in every instance here except one: returning your 250$ to people in GD is not Socialism or Socialistic.

Your 250$ is a tax refund. You've said before that the government makes no money on its own- thus, it does not matter what the clothes your 250$ is dressed in: at the bottom line, it is still a tax refund. You do pay taxes, correct? This money is being handed to you by your government, which as we just covered, only makes its money through taxes (and even if such was not the case, in the case of your stimulus package money it most assuredly is). Therefore, the government is giving a portion of your taxes back to you. That's what a tax refund is.

Now, the other members of GD (at least the ones in the US) are taxpayers as well. Your 250$ is not a direct reimbursment of your personal tax money- it's a mixture of yours and everyone else's. Therefore, to dissipate it between each taxpaying memeber of GD is returning their money to them as well- something you and other conservatives often harped upon back in the days of Bush as something that you wanted from your government.
(more on this in a minute).

quote:

---

Since I am anti-Socialism, why would I divvy up any $$$ that I earn, or am given,

---

Wait wait wait. Work with me here.
Given:
1. Conservatives support tax cuts, as it is giving people back the money they already paid to the government.
Okay, now here's the situation: You have been given your tax cut. You don't want it. But you are also opposed to distributing it amongst other taxpayers as you feel it is socialism. There are several inherent and intractable flaws in this idea.
The first is how you are looking at the transaction. You say you don't want to give money to people when they haven't worked for it. Well, guess what? your government just did exactly that to YOU. You were "given" money. Did you work directly for that 250$? No, you did not. You were given a tax refund- something you would normally appreciate (or, appreciate only under a republican president more on that in a minute as well).
The second is directly related to the first. Let's suppose the inverse- that your 250$ were earned, as they are composed partly of money you worked for in the first place. Except that's not a direct portion of your money precisely, as already stated- it's a mixture of everyone's. Therefore, returning some of it to other taxpayers really is just returning THEIR money to them, as it has been returned to you. In a way, you have become a scale version of the government: You have a modest sum of money, money composed of millions of people's tax dollars. You are faced with the opportunity to return a portion of that sum to each of them, ie give them their money back.

But I suspect this is not a matter of logic, rather one of ideology. This is what tipped me off:

quote:

---

amongst a group of people who did nothing more than elect an incompetent, flip-flopping, cookie cutter politician?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ml490:
I miss Nixon.

---

Are you being sarcastic here? Did I miss something?

__________________
MOTL's best sale

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Nooooo! Alberta is now one step closer to Texas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
has anyone ever actually done anything "good" (e.g., stop believing in God) as a result of a sex or science class?

---

fixed for ya

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
The true fanatics homeschool anyway, so I don't think this really affects anyone except on principle. I never did understand the huge fuss from the religious right on this one, though - has anyone ever actually done anything "bad" (e.g., stop believing in God or hire a prostitute) as a result of a sex or science class?

---

You're right that it's unlikely that too many parents will use this option, but the legislation is still quite bothersome. Children should be exposed to these topics in school, and it should be done from a number of different angles. Reserving the right to pull your child out is just ridiculous in this day, age, and society, and it's an option that caters far more to intolerance than it does to tolerance. Education on the topics of religion and sexuality is already severely lacking in our society; why cripple it more?

/end venting.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

I'm not going to try to post my thoughts on the topic for many reasons icluding time constraints, but also because I am barely in control of my anger and I'm worried I will say something that will get me banned. Not kidding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
So, an abortion docter has been shot and killed and the leaders of the pro-life movement have blamed him.
Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
So, an abortion docter has been shot and killed and the leaders of the pro-life movement have blamed him.
Thoughts?

---

Ridiculous, of course. What more can be said?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
So, an abortion docter has been shot and killed and the leaders of the pro-life movement have blamed him.
Thoughts?

---

Typical. Rah rah rah loud noises.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

For example, the situation with Dr. Tiller deserves some serious discussion. Just think about it: what better way to advocate for your pro-life cause than by taking a life?

Right?

Right?

...

Stupid nutter. This is why I am a gun-carrying liberal!

Edit: American liberal. Apparently we need to repeatedly make the clarification that American liberals/leftists are the equivalent of European centrists.
__________________
In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
We would know what is going on in Iran in the absence of Twitter. And it's not singlehandedly defeating the Iranian government; they're defeating themselves. Your argument, as usual, has more holes in it than a colander.

---

My 'argument' that Twitter is ONE (one, #1, implies that there are more reasons) of the reasons why we know what's going on in Iran has holes in it how? And when did I say that Twitter is "single handedly defeating the Iranian governement"? If that's what you assumed I was saying, which is obvious that it is, then that's your problem. Not mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
My 'argument' that Twitter is ONE (one, #1, implies that there are more reasons) of the reasons why we know what's going on in Iran has holes in it how? And when did I say that Twitter is "single handedly defeating the Iranian governement"? If that's what you assumed I was saying, which is obvious that it is, then that's your problem. Not mine.

Guess I should have said Technology>>>>>>Iranian government

---

obv troll is obv

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
I am deeply impressed by Obama's behavior thus far in regards to Iran. Good on you, Obama, for doing the best possible thing- keeping quiet.

---

Yeah don't take a stand, don't take a side. Do exactly what you are doing all through this presidency....absolutely nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Yeah don't take a stand, don't take a side. Do exactly what you are doing all through this presidency....absolutely nothing.

---

So you want him to take a side? Yes, that sounds good. He can side with the protesters and give Ahmedinijijijablah exactly what he's been looking for- the perfect foil with which to stoke the nationalist sentiments deep in Iranian culture. Don't doubt his ability to do that- it's the centrepiece of the man's political power. He has made his presidency all about nationalist resentment towards the US and foreigners in general, he can end things quickly in that vein if need be.
Ooh, no, we don't want that. We don't want the opposition to be crushed and Ahhdedhrmimijag to gain credibility and support. So maybe he can side with Amehndidmagaj instead of Moussavi and the protesters. Then he can maybe do the reverse- twist that same nationalist resentment against the establishment! Yeah, that should work.
Oh, wait. If we do that, no matter which side (the protestors or the current govt.) wins in this struggle eventually, they will despise us. The opposition for us supporting the establishment, the establishment because they hate us deeply anyways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Yeah don't take a stand, don't take a side. Do exactly what you are doing all through this presidency....absolutely nothing.

---

Because American interventionism is doing so much good everywhere else in the world, right?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Yeah don't take a stand, don't take a side. Do exactly what you are doing all through this presidency....absolutely nothing.

---