BF2S Forums [D&ST Political Slider 2010]

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Address the points then.

I argue things with you purely because you come out with some of the most ridiculous and deluded drivel I have ever heard. It makes my mind boggle that anyone who can write and string something resembling a coherent sentence together could come out with such utter nonsense. If anything it's depressing to realise people so wholly misinformed and misguided exist - particularly when so much of it is so selfish and in some cases malicious.

and yet I am self sufficient, I believe owning up to my responsibilities, I pay my bills, I accept no entitlement and never have, I make no excuses for my failures or apologize for my successes. Yeah, I am soooooooooooo misguided, and misinformed.

Yes, you are.

Did you pay for your primary school education? If not then you have accepted public services that you were entitled to and had not paid for.

lowing wrote:

Ahhh it is selfish to work for myself and expect you to do the same. Why not go join that other idiot who decided it was govts. job to take care of you? and you call me mis-informed and mis-guided. buddy, your entitlement attitude is going to fuck you up when Obama does not deliver.

Yes, it is selfish to expect everyone, regardless of circumstance to work in the same way as you.

Which other idiot? To a point it is the governments job to take care of you. The government is their to protect the rights and interests of the people, that is taking care of you and that is what government does.

Why would my attitude fuck me up when Obama does not deliver (and deliver what exactly)? I fail to see how it would impact me.

Yes my parents paid for my education it is called taxes, I now pay for my kids education, it is called taxes. Problem is, even those that pay no taxes still are "ENTITLED" to public education. THis is not me, mine has been paid for by me.

Why is it selfish to expect all able bodied people to get off of their ass and work?

No it is the govts. job to ensure our freedom to take care of ourselves, NOT to take care of you. the right to life liberty and PERSUIT of happiness is all you are "entitled" to

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet I am self sufficient, I believe owning up to my responsibilities, I pay my bills, I accept no entitlement and never have, I make no excuses for my failures or apologize for my successes. Yeah, I am soooooooooooo misguided, and misinformed.

Yes, you are.

Did you pay for your primary school education? If not then you have accepted public services that you were entitled to and had not paid for.

lowing wrote:

Ahhh it is selfish to work for myself and expect you to do the same. Why not go join that other idiot who decided it was govts. job to take care of you? and you call me mis-informed and mis-guided. buddy, your entitlement attitude is going to fuck you up when Obama does not deliver.

Yes, it is selfish to expect everyone, regardless of circumstance to work in the same way as you.

Which other idiot? To a point it is the governments job to take care of you. The government is their to protect the rights and interests of the people, that is taking care of you and that is what government does.

Why would my attitude fuck me up when Obama does not deliver (and deliver what exactly)? I fail to see how it would impact me.

Yes my parents paid for my education it is called taxes, I now pay for my kids education, it is called taxes. Problem is, even those that pay no taxes still are "ENTITLED" to public education. THis is not me, mine has been paid for by me.

So you didn't pay for it? It was handed to you on a plate?

School is free for children and paid for by the prospect of future higher tax revenues generated by them earning more as a result of it. Why? Because there are tangible benefits to the nation as a whole for having it. The same can be said of most (not all, there are some stupid ones) social programs.

lowing wrote:

Why is it selfish to expect all able bodied people to get off of their ass and work?

Because not everyone can. Why only able bodied anyway? There are lots of valid reasons for people not to be in work.

lowing wrote:

No it is the govts. job to ensure our freedom to take care of ourselves, NOT to take care of you. the right to life liberty and PERSUIT of happiness is all you are "entitled" to

It's the governments job to protect the rights and interests of its citizens.

BTW - if you're going to capitalise a word to draw attention to it like that, it would be best to spell it right. That spelling is only marginally more accurate than your definitions. I take it English was not your strong suite at school.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet I am self sufficient, I believe owning up to my responsibilities, I pay my bills, I accept no entitlement and never have, I make no excuses for my failures or apologize for my successes. Yeah, I am soooooooooooo misguided, and misinformed.

Yes, you are.

Did you pay for your primary school education? If not then you have accepted public services that you were entitled to and had not paid for.


Yes, it is selfish to expect everyone, regardless of circumstance to work in the same way as you.

Which other idiot? To a point it is the governments job to take care of you. The government is their to protect the rights and interests of the people, that is taking care of you and that is what government does.

Why would my attitude fuck me up when Obama does not deliver (and deliver what exactly)? I fail to see how it would impact me.

Yes my parents paid for my education it is called taxes, I now pay for my kids education, it is called taxes. Problem is, even those that pay no taxes still are "ENTITLED" to public education. This is not me, mine has been paid for by me.

So you didn't pay for it? It was handed to you on a plate?

School is free for children and paid for by the prospect of future higher tax revenues generated by them earning more as a result of it. Why? Because there are tangible benefits to the nation as a whole for having it. The same can be said of most (not all, there are some stupid ones) social programs.

lowing wrote:

Why is it selfish to expect all able bodied people to get off of their ass and work?

Because not everyone can. Why only able bodied anyway? There are lots of valid reasons for people not to be in work.

lowing wrote:

No it is the govts. job to ensure our freedom to take care of ourselves, NOT to take care of you. the right to life liberty and PERSUIT of happiness is all you are "entitled" to

It's the governments job to protect the rights and interests of its citizens.

BTW - if you're going to capitalise a word to draw attention to it like that, it would be best to spell it right. That spelling is only marginally more accurate than your definitions. I take it English was not your strong suite at school.

School isn't free, well for those of us that actually pay for it it isn't free. Probably free for you and your kids however.

Not every able bodied person can work? Really? Please explain that one.... I ask because a Mexican can come here illegally and have a job in minutes, so it should not be so hard for a legal citizen who speaks english to find one. I also notice that there are no American citizens standing on the corner waiter for a day job. Don't tell me there is no work.. What you mean is, there is no work for lazy fuckers.

Sorry for the mis-spelling I am not as quick to run spell checker as you are I guess. I am however, smart enough to know what is free and what is not, and your entitlement is not free.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes my parents paid for my education it is called taxes, I now pay for my kids education, it is called taxes. Problem is, even those that pay no taxes still are "ENTITLED" to public education. This is not me, mine has been paid for by me.

So you didn't pay for it? It was handed to you on a plate?

School is free for children and paid for by the prospect of future higher tax revenues generated by them earning more as a result of it. Why? Because there are tangible benefits to the nation as a whole for having it. The same can be said of most (not all, there are some stupid ones) social programs.

lowing wrote:

Why is it selfish to expect all able bodied people to get off of their ass and work?

Because not everyone can. Why only able bodied anyway? There are lots of valid reasons for people not to be in work.

lowing wrote:

No it is the govts. job to ensure our freedom to take care of ourselves, NOT to take care of you. the right to life liberty and PERSUIT of happiness is all you are "entitled" to

It's the governments job to protect the rights and interests of its citizens.

BTW - if you're going to capitalise a word to draw attention to it like that, it would be best to spell it right. That spelling is only marginally more accurate than your definitions. I take it English was not your strong suite at school.

School isn't free, well for those of us that actually pay for it it isn't free. Probably free for you and your kids however.

Of course it's free. All public services that are free at point of use are free. They are free because there is no obligation to pay for them. No one directly pays for these services. People pay the contribution they can afford into the system for the benefit of their countrymen. Your objection to this overall notion is what I find most selfish.

Personally, I pay a heck of a lot of taxes. Mostly on my investments - capital gains is a bitch.

lowing wrote:

Not every able bodied person can work? Really? Please explain that one.... I ask because a Mexican can come here illegally and have a job in minutes, so it should not be so hard for a legal citizen who speaks english to find one. I also notice that there are no American citizens standing on the corner waiter for a day job. Don't tell me there is no work.. What you mean is, there is no work for lazy fuckers.

There are loads of reasons. There are also loads of reasons it is easier for illegal immigrants to find low paid work, because for employers it is so damn cheap and there is no tax burden for them.

One example could be someone highly skilled in a specialised field being made redundant and it taking them quite a while to find a new job. Tying themselves down to another job they are not skilled in could lead to them missing opportunities for work in their field. Supporting that person while they try and find a suitable job is in the governments best interest, since long term they will get a return from the investment in that person.

There are many more examples. Allowing people with prospects to fail and be pushed into a downward spiral of unsuitable employment is not a good idea. Supporting people through difficult patches is a good thing.

lowing wrote:

Sorry for the mis-spelling I am not as quick to run spell checker as you are I guess. I am however, smart enough to know what is free and what is not, and your entitlement is not free.

I don't use spellcheckers - what I do is re-read my posts before hitting submit. I suspect your 2nd assertion there is even more incorrect than your 1st.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No, the solid counterpoints are what showed that they were false. I didn't do any justifying.

You have done NOTHING to show that Obama is in any way a fascist. Not one point you have made on this has shown that you have any idea what fascism is.

You might have to go over it again then because per the definition I linked, govt. control over private industry is fascist. Now, how again was our govt. buying stock into GM, dictating salaries,, and taking over the healthcare industry NOT fascist?

It's a facet of fascism. One.

You've also applied it in completely the wrong way. Taking over the healthcare industry, which is not what is happening, would be a socialist action. Very left-wing politics. Fascism is right-wing in the extreme.

I've already explained that the drive for government intervention in fascism is a sort of accelerated survival of the fittest approach, which does not fit at all with the failing and quite uncompetitive US auto industry. Supporting failing businesses because of the impact their failure would have on the workers is, again, socialist.

You've also ignored the VERY IMPORTANT point that there is no single definition of fascism.

fascism

/fashiz’m/

  • noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

That's the OED definition. It focuses very heavily on it being a right-wing system. That is one thing no one with any idea of what fascism is would argue against. Obama is not right-wing. By American standards he is quite far left - which is why he has received so much criticism from the right.

I thought I read where you said there is no true definition of fascism, so I went with what the dictionary says, and you dismiss the dictionary before you dismiss wikipedia.

The definition I admitted does not distinguish between any survival of the fittest assertion. Fascism, like socialism is about govt. control over citizens and citizen dependency on govt. for survival. period. Your dissections not withstanding.

Ok...

What did I miss?

Oh nvm







***fart****







arguing about definitions?  awesome

LOL on the comment on needing a spell checker to spell PURSUIT, a word someone in the 5th grade would have on their spelling test.
Guess your parents didn't pay enough for your schooling, did they?

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why does every thread that lowing gets involved in become completely destroyed? Started out good and then it got long with post after post of nonsense. Arguing definitions ffs. JHC.

Maybe if he wasn't so bloody anal-retentive about THIS IS MY DEFINITION AND MY INTERPRETATION OF IT IS THE ONLY VALID ONE we wouldn't have this issue.

Actually it is not my definition, it is not like I made it up. It is also pretty clear as to what it says about govt. control over private industry. Doesn't leave much to interpretation.

Also bertster, when govt. forces you to buy something from a private market, or face penalties, it is a form of govt. control and that is Obamacare.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Maybe if he wasn't so bloody anal-retentive about THIS IS MY DEFINITION AND MY INTERPRETATION OF IT IS THE ONLY VALID ONE we wouldn't have this issue.

Actually it is not my definition, it is not like I made it up. It is also pretty clear as to what it says about govt. control over private industry. Doesn't leave much to interpretation.

Also bertster, when govt. forces you to buy something from a private market, or face penalties, it is a form of govt. control and that is Obamacare.

Government control doesn't equal facism lowing ... if Obama was a dictator and his words no matter what dictated everything I would agree with you but that's not the case is it?

govt. control over private industry is fascism.  govt forcing you to buy a product you may not want is control.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Maybe if he wasn't so bloody anal-retentive about THIS IS MY DEFINITION AND MY INTERPRETATION OF IT IS THE ONLY VALID ONE we wouldn't have this issue.

Actually it is not my definition, it is not like I made it up. It is also pretty clear as to what it says about govt. control over private industry. Doesn't leave much to interpretation.

Also bertster, when govt. forces you to buy something from a private market, or face penalties, it is a form of govt. control and that is Obamacare.

Fascism is not defined by government control over private industry. In fact that isn't a particularly defining feature of fascism at all. Much more important are its nationalistic, militaristic, dictatorial and racist/sexist overtures, but I won't even bother this if you think that one dictionary definition is the be-all-and-end-all of a deeply complex topic in political science.

nope never made that claim. However govt. control over private industry is a facet of fascism, and Obama has done that. Regardless if you like it or not.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually it is not my definition, it is not like I made it up. It is also pretty clear as to what it says about govt. control over private industry. Doesn't leave much to interpretation.

Also bertster, when govt. forces you to buy something from a private market, or face penalties, it is a form of govt. control and that is Obamacare.

Government control doesn't equal facism lowing ... if Obama was a dictator and his words no matter what dictated everything I would agree with you but that's not the case is it?

govt. control over private industry is fascism.  govt forcing you to buy a product you may not want is control.

Then you don't know what facism is obviously ...

JohnG@lt wrote:

While fascism is a specific political ideology, it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. lowing is using it as a synonym. Just accept that and end the thread.

So if I called you a gay motherfucker stupid piece of shit you'd be allright with that seeing as I think that is synonymous with being an OK bloke?

Okay ...