The Alternative To Obama And Democrat Policies Thread - Page 2

Jeez.

One group of people supports families with a single mom and a child or children, a single dad and a child or children, a mom and dad and child or children, grandparents or aunts or uncles and a child or children, two dads and a child or children, two moms and a child or children, a childless same sex couple, a childless opposite sex couple, and many other forms of family.

The other group doesn't support the idea of many of those.

Which one is pro-family and which one is anti-family?

I'm certainly not redefining any terms here. One of those two groups is pro-family, and one is anti-family. If you don't like the descriptions that fits, then fit the description you want. Either support families or oppose them.

But that's for another thread.

Eliminate the department of education and move to block granting money to states.

So I guess since we are redefining what constitutes anti- whatever one could use your same argument to say if you are for abortion you are anti-child, or anti-human life.

One group defines an unborn baby as a human life, a full child with all the rights and privileges at any term or trimester. Another group proclaims it is not a child until it is born. Since my definition is more inclusive than yours you cannot argue any different. Thanks for the lesson.

So you're honestly saying that two dads with a child is NOT a family? Really?

It's not at all the same thing, unless your answer to that question is yes.

You may not approve of that type of family, but I don't think you can seriously claim it's not a family.

So you are honestly saying that an embryo growing in a womb is not a life? Really?

It is the same thing given the assertion you have made that specifically makes it black and white.

You may not approve of that definition of life, but I don't seriously think you can claim it is otherwise.

What is hilarious is how backwards the reality is to your hypothetical.

The reality is that successful companies do not feel the need to nickle and dime their customers. They provide an every increasing value proposition for the same or lowered cost due to efficiency and productivity gains.

Where will you find a restaurant with pay toilets? Any neighborhood where the government has been handing out lots of checks for WIC, food stamps, section 8 and other assorted programs.

People who do not need to earn anything respect nothing and thus operating businesses in those communities is expensive and dangerous.

If JG wants to avoid pay toilets, all he has to do is get rid of the government, not increase it as you advocate. Wherever it is increasing, you're going to be dropping a quarter into a door to go pee.

and WHOOSH! goes the analogy right over the head.

If you're saying that the government should provide free education without nickel and diming taxpayers over the costs, then I agree with you!

It isn't going over my head. The analogy is a bad one and I've shown you why. Analogy is supposed to explain parallel cases. I showed that not only were your cases not parallel, they were the exact opposite instead.

No, you didn't. You are following the analogy in parallel, except where you took the analogy literally, which didn't make any sense. And you're agreeing with me.

You said that in a healthy society, the restaurant provides what some of the people need (a clean and maintained toilet), free of charge (well, bundled into the charge of going into that restaurant), whether all of the people need it or not. That's exactly what you said. And that is EXACTLY correct. In a healthy nation, the government provides what some of the people need (e.g. healthcare and education), free of charge (bundled with the cost of living in that state, i.e. taxes), whether all of the people need it or not.

You also said that it's only in unhealthy societies where the restaurant charges people for those things on a user pays basis. That's exactly correct. It's only unhealthy societies where the government demands user pays for basic services.

The fact that you cannot see the parallel is puzzling. I'm sure you're smarter than that. I think you just didn't think it through.

And now that I've pointed it out, it comes down to intellectual honesty. Are you intellectually honest enough to see it now?

The reality is that successful [governments] do not feel the need to nickle and dime their [citizens]. They provide an every increasing value proposition for the same or lowered cost due to efficiency and productivity gains.

Where will you find a [government] with [user pays]? Only where the economy is not healthy.

I'll have a bottle of whatever he's drinking please.


Actually that isn't at all what I said. I said that a good business has used economies of scale to drive the cost of a core product down to a point to where price alone is not the key difference and because of this businesses use their profits to add to the value proposition. The simplified version of this is they begin giving you things to keep you as a customer out of fear you can take your business elsewhere. It has nothing to do with whether people need it or not. Your restaurant puts in a bathroom because if someone leaves the restaurant to go take a leak, their wallet leaves with them and might not come back when it finds the restaurant down the street that also sells beer and even provides chips for free to make you more thirsty.


A healthy nation honors it's founding document which states the rationale for government. Being needy is not one of rationales.


This is not even close. This isn't seriously just one big joke your telling in getting it this wrong?!? I didn't say the society was unhealthy. I said that government providing for basic needs made those who receive the government services disrespectful of private property and thus the patrons of private property in areas of government largess damage said property and thus the owners need a surcharge to survive there.


I think perhaps you've fallen and hit your head.

Am I honest enough to note that the framework you continue to push is absurd and that the comprehension of what you've declared you understand from my writing is profoundly bad? Absolutely.

Are you honest enough to note that you've basically had to go to the extreme of distorting and declaring me ignorant of my own typed words in some desperate attempt to sustain, well what I don't really know. It's very odd, that's for sure.

And as the US removes things that make living in the US better for average citizens, the rich will migrate to somewhere better, just like how as the restaurant removes basic services that not everybody uses, the patrons will go elsewhere. I don't have a problem with this, except that it will affect people that I love who still live there, and my daughter who may wish to live there in the future if it's still livable.

Don't blame me when you're 70, there's no DOE, welfare has been slashed, and you have to buy steel shutters for your windows, a steel door, keep your car in a steel garage and never go out. Want to go for a walk in the park? That's a laugh. Oh, and your taxes will STILL be 40% to pay for prisons and "homeland security", which will mostly be used to protect Americans from other Americans.

My parents will die within a decade or two, but I feel sorry for everyone else left over there. Honestly.

Brazilian slums will look like paradise.

Even with allowances for hyperbole, that's a pretty bizarre viewpoint Tonton.

Privatizing prisons was one of the WORST ideas anyone has ever had. Now there's a profit motive to put people in jail. Why do you think this retarded drug war persists? That's a huge part of it.

Didn't actually see anyone advocating privatized prisons here. Did I miss a post?

Read the end of tonton's post. He mentions that much of our money will be spent on prisons. That mention led to me thinking about all the current money we spend on prisons and how privatizing them has made things much, much worse.