Who the Fu*k You Are and What the Fu*k You Stand For

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
I am an American. I don't believe in titles. I believe in compassion. That rules out forcing my beliefs of abortion on anyone. (Which is pro-choice, btw) And it rules out fighting wars to steal other countries resources. And it rules out letting my fellow American's die because they can't afford the outrageously overpriced, unnecessary insurance premiums.

I believe in compassion and enlightenment. Oh, and I also believe it is entirely possible to make a lot of money in compassion and enlightenment. Maybe not as much as you can in enslavement, but a lot.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
I am, among many other things, a person who is no longer shocked but never the less saddened by the notion that we have become a Nation filled with people who can sum up all of their beliefs about life in a few paragraphs. They sum up life within a bumper sticker and then have absolute confidence in their opinions, dismissing as unenlightened, evil and mean spirited those who properly perceive life as being as complex and nuanced as it is.

Yet you come back and fix all of social ills with your posts. Right....

This isn't supposed to be a detailed manifesto, rather a broad overview into the basis of beliefs we hold. And I believe this thread has already done some good, as others I might have vehemently disagreed with before I would now respectfully disagree with, based on how they justify their beliefs.
 

Sustainable420

Active Member
I'm just for people practicing virtues, like I try to do. Politically, issues will sway left, right, and everywhere inbetween because there is good ideas throughout the spectrum. Extremism is just lame.

:bigjoint:
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The same way that people who don't want so much spent on the military still have to pay for it? I assume the poster was implying that having all citizens get health care should be given as high a priority as military spending gets.
Then I suggest you stop paying for it.

Extortion for the warfare state is just as wrong as extortion for the welfare state isn't it?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If a health care worker quit his/her job I don't think we would have any problem with someone else taking her/his place.
I guess you don't pay taxes, because if you did you would know that you are already paying for stuff you may not want. Again I repeat " If you pay taxes and born in the U.S. Health Care should be a right. America suppose to be the best and can't find away to offer her people affordable Health Care..geezzzzzz:wall:
ACCESS to Healthcare is anybodies right, agreed.

But having others pay for it "Should be a right"? How do you justify this?

Is it your right (or mine) to force somebody to pay for your needs, your wants? Please answer that ONE question.

Using your "logic"... Isn't food one of the most necessary things to sustain life? I'm out of milk and eggs, please pick up some at the store and deliver them to me...I'm hungry. Don't I have a
"right" not to be hungry? I DEMAND you fulfill my "right" not to be hungry!
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, we already do. It's called welfare and food stamps. Sit on your ass all day drinking beer and watching the MSM and apparently the US taxpayers would love to finance your lifestyle.

Would you like some housing and free healthcare to go with that order sir? We have some hard working Americans with ENTIRELY too much personal wealth that we need to find a way to extort. So what if they earned it, gimme gimme gimme, I need, I need.
 

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
ACCESS to Healthcare is anybodies right, agreed.

But having others pay for it "Should be a right"? How do you justify this?

Is it your right (or mine) to force somebody to pay for your needs, your wants? Please answer that ONE question.

Using your "logic"... Isn't food one of the most necessary things to sustain life? I'm out of milk and eggs, please pick up some at the store and deliver them to me...I'm hungry. Don't I have a
"right" not to be hungry? I DEMAND you fulfill my "right" not to be hungry!
I'll try to answer that ONE question. We, as a community, have the RIGHT to vote on what programs we will enact to better provide for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

To that end, we have so far enacted: an army, a police force, a fire brigade, public libraries and public schools, public emergency care so that people are just dying on the streets, public food assistance programs for the same reasons and medicare so that our elderly-who do not work- will still receive health care, and VA hospitals so that our veterans have coverage after their service.

We did not agree to any of this, but our predecessors did. And like it or not, these social services are the mark of ANY and ALL enlightened, 1st world countries. And no doubt, there were citizens and statesman who fought the need of every one of those.

Now, if you claim that in your neighborhood you reject the state police and instead every household takes up arms for themselves, you might save on tax money, but the citizenry is NOT better off. You will be isolated from the rest of the advancements made in around the state in law enforcements. Your next likely step will be to hire a private company to keep security. But without the large purchasing power of the citizen's taxes, the cost for private security will always be higher.

This is the argument for health care. It is ONLY A DEBATE. You do NOT have to agree. But understand that some of our fellow citizens are getting the shaft for situations outside of their control. Insurance company greed knows NO BOUNDS! They will even let THEIR OWN PAYING customers die rather than curb the profit margins.

The enormous buying power of the citizen's taxes COULD be put to work here, and fairly...if we had honest representatives in government by: raising taxes to provide health care to those who are priced out by the greedy corporations, and giving a tax credit to those who choose not to participate in the program. Unfortunately, you will never hear that type of simple reasoning from congress. It amounts to raising the taxes of ONLY those who use a particular program. And the government wants to tax EVERYBODY.

My guess is, most of America would choose the lower cost government program. And the rest of you apparently rich motherfuckers would get your tax break at the end of the year and never see a change in service.

Or everyone could rail against progress. And maybe close some libraries too and instead give the money to Xe. God knows Gen. McCrystal has been slacking on killing brown people lately.

By the way, food and housing is a declared RIGHT of people in this nation. Those kinds of things are supposedly what makes this rich nation great. Yet here you are essentially stating you would rather have the hungry starve to death in this rich country. This is the thinking which will hold back a 1st rate nation from achieving peace and security, though we have achieved greatness. Take the next step, bro. Imagine a world of peace and security. You have to let go of selfishness and greed to make it happen.
 

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, we already do. It's called welfare and food stamps. Sit on your ass all day drinking beer and watching the MSM and apparently the US taxpayers would love to finance your lifestyle.

Would you like some housing and free healthcare to go with that order sir? We have some hard working Americans with ENTIRELY too much personal wealth that we need to find a way to extort. So what if they earned it, gimme gimme gimme, I need, I need.
This is a stereotype. And it is preventing you from seeing the larger picture. The nation is experiencing 10%-20% unemployment due to greedy, premeditated crimes on the part of the banks and financial institutes. And you keep blaming the victims. You are either blind, or in on the scam or completely brainwashed by mass media.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
This is a stereotype. And it is preventing you from seeing the larger picture. The nation is experiencing 10%-20% unemployment due to greedy, premeditated crimes on the part of the banks and financial institutes. And you keep blaming the victims. You are either blind, or in on the scam or completely brainwashed by mass media.
So by premeditated, you of course are talking about when the Progressives in Congress and Bill Clinton passed the Community Reinvestment Act that actually forced banks to give loans to people who had no business getting them. And of course you mean Janet Reno, the "ENFORCER" of that legislation, in her own words.

Granted, once the banks had no choice but to comply and they saw that the bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, sure they jumped on board and made their money. Certainly not absolving the greedy banks, but lets not revise history again and forget the CRA started the whole mess.

It's funny, but the financial shitstorm that was the direct result of the CRA is EXACTLY what the opponents of that legislation warned of. I find it laughable that when these Socialist, Progressive and Anti-American programs fail as we all know they will, the Liberal fucksticks won't acknowledge how accurate the naysayers of all this bad legislation were. They just gloss right over it or say something like, nobody could have predicted this outcome. Bullshit, plenty of people didn't just predict it, they deemed it inevitable. You just weren't listening.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
The CRA did not cause the financial collapse, although it was definitely a part of the equation. Care to hazard a guess about what causes about 1 out of 3 foreclosures? f you guessed going bankrupt due to medical bills, you would be right!

Then, you have to look at the banks who basically made bets against the American people and then bets on those bets.

Finally, to blame it all on Clinton and the progressives is kind of ridiculous, especially considering how Bush and the repubs had 6 years to fix it if they thought it was a problem. Instead, Bush would bring up record home ownership rates in every state of the union address, and talk about an 'ownership society'.

Some ownership society....if you are a bank.

Please use some perspective and common sense, muyloco. To blame the entire financil collapse on the CRA is absurd, and you should know it.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
The CRA did not cause the financial collapse, although it was definitely a part of the equation. Care to hazard a guess about what causes about 1 out of 3 foreclosures? f you guessed going bankrupt due to medical bills, you would be right!

Then, you have to look at the banks who basically made bets against the American people and then bets on those bets.

Finally, to blame it all on Clinton and the progressives is kind of ridiculous, especially considering how Bush and the repubs had 6 years to fix it if they thought it was a problem. Instead, Bush would bring up record home ownership rates in every state of the union address, and talk about an 'ownership society'.

Some ownership society....if you are a bank.

Please use some perspective and common sense, muyloco. To blame the entire financil collapse on the CRA is absurd, and you should know it.
Those are dated stats, in today's reality a bankruptcy due to medical bills wouldn't even involve the house, unless there is a legitimate equity in said house. You think most people in that situation have positive equity? Laughable. Most of the foreclosures your seeing today are a direct result of bad loans granted courtesy of the CRA and also due to staggering unemployment. Not the 10+ % we read about in the MSM, but the 17+ % actual unemployment. All this because PROGRESSIVES felt it was a "right" to own a home... sounds familiar doesn't it. This is the tragedy that occurs when you manufacture a "right" that isn't and then gamble the country's financial future on perpetuating the lie.

And I didn't ONLY blame the CRA, I just pointed out that it was the flawed, un-American catalyst for all of this turmoil. I also didn't just blame the Dems, Bush is/was a Progressive just like these other pukes and his Prescription Drug legislation is a large part of our unfunded liabilities.
 

medicineman

New Member
Those are dated stats, in today's reality a bankruptcy due to medical bills wouldn't even involve the house, unless there is a legitimate equity in said house. You think most people in that situation have positive equity? Laughable. Most of the foreclosures your seeing today are a direct result of bad loans granted courtesy of the CRA and also due to staggering unemployment. Not the 10+ % we read about in the MSM, but the 17+ % actual unemployment. All this because PROGRESSIVES felt it was a "right" to own a home... sounds familiar doesn't it. This is the tragedy that occurs when you manufacture a "right" that isn't and then gamble the country's financial future on perpetuating the lie.

And I didn't ONLY blame the CRA, I just pointed out that it was the flawed, un-American catalyst for all of this turmoil. I also didn't just blame the Dems, Bush is/was a Progressive just like these other pukes and his Prescription Drug legislation is a large part of our unfunded liabilities.
Why are progressives "Pukes"? The term progressive actually means forward looking. Do all you conservatives live in the past? Still looking for "the good old days"? Sorry charley, those days are gone forever, you'll not be bringing those back anytime soon, thank God.
 

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
So by premeditated, you of course are talking about when the Progressives in Congress and Bill Clinton passed the Community Reinvestment Act that actually forced banks to give loans to people who had no business getting them. And of course you mean Janet Reno, the "ENFORCER" of that legislation, in her own words.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The defrauding, wealth grabbing is completely bi-partisan: Dupe the American people, who we have failed to educate, into fucking up a major financial decision, so that we can steal their wealth.

Now you have it! Republicans and Democrats are lying, asshole whores of big business and banks!
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Why are progressives "Pukes"? The term progressive actually means forward looking. Do all you conservatives live in the past? Still looking for "the good old days"? Sorry charley, those days are gone forever, you'll not be bringing those back anytime soon, thank God.

Screw the dictionary definitions. Liberals hate the moniker "liberal", so that's what they should be called. Hell, they're the ones that adopted the term, before they aborted it...:eyesmoke:
 

medicineman

New Member
Screw the dictionary definitions. Liberals hate the moniker "liberal", so that's what they should be called. Hell, they're the ones that adopted the term, before they aborted it...:eyesmoke:
I guess your definition trumps the Webster terminology. Geeze, if I'd of only known.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
I hope for your sake and all our sakes, you're wrong Med. Progressives aren't looking forward in a positive sense, they are trying to backdoor this country into being just like another one of these crummy european socialist shitholes. No thanks, you and your ilk are a paltry 20+ % of the American people. As to where we're going, I think there's a good chance that in the next 5-6 years we see a 25% reduction in our government as well as the dismantling of all of these socialist programs going back to "The New Deal".
 

afrawfraw

Well-Known Member
UH, YA! The more ignorant your people, the easier they are to control...

"If you control (the radius of) someone's education, you control (the diameter of) their ability"
 

medicineman

New Member
I hope for your sake and all our sakes, you're wrong Med. Progressives aren't looking forward in a positive sense, they are trying to backdoor this country into being just like another one of these crummy european socialist shitholes. No thanks, you and your ilk are a paltry 20+ % of the American people. As to where we're going, I think there's a good chance that in the next 5-6 years we see a 25% reduction in our government as well as the dismantling of all of these socialist programs going back to "The New Deal".
Dream on sucker. Health care is going to be rammed through under reconcilliation, your party, the party of no loses. Pay up sucker, pay up, LOL. BTW, I have no dog in the healthcare fight, my care is superior, and cheap. Fuck all you conservative bitches. I'll bet my care is better than 90% of all those cadillac plans. My fight is for the people that are being raped by the insurance companies and those without any care.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
I guess your definition trumps the Webster terminology. Geeze, if I'd of only known.
Once upon a time, you were a conservative hating liberal. Now, you're a conservative hating progressive, who hates the term liberal.

To acquiesce to you would be to grant you the power to control language in order to destroy us.

I think I'll call you liberal.
 
Top