Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

banning lead bullets and weights

sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 8:11:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is there no end to what environmentalists want to ban. Is there no end to what liberal progressives want to prohibit me from doing or force me to do. Is there no end to creating new taxes to punish peoples legal right to eat what the want. It is not the Conservative Republican that wants to decimate your civil liberties. It is the Liberal Progressives Enviromentalist. They own this title. Their in your face about it and they don't give a rats a## what you think about it. They think they are morally superior, they think they are intellectually superior, but in reality they they are the most unoriginal, repeat the same socialist big govt idiots in the universe. When will they ever learn that when you take money from one group of people who work for it and give it to another group who doesn't work for it, both groups are equally uninclined to work. Why should the group who is given cradle to grave benefits work any harder. Being poor wasn't enough to get them motivated. And the person who busts his a## and works 60 to 80 hours a week is less inclined to work because his efforts will only be punished by the confiscation of his wealth. This has been tried hundreds and hundreds of times over the centuries. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hmm...ranting? I just wanted to point out a few things. Of course this doesn't apply to all, but many poor people work incredibly hard and get little in return. Just my two cents. I do however, have a problem with welfare money going to lazy people who choose not to work and drug addicts who just waste it buying drugs.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 8:19:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 8:17:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Hmm...ranting? I just wanted to point out a few things. Of course this doesn't apply to all, but many poor people work incredibly hard and get little in return. Just my two cents. I do however, have a problem with welfare money going to lazy people who choose not to work and drug addicts who just waste it buying drugs.

Those that work incredibly hard for little returns are doing it wrong. Success isn't about working hard, it's about working smart.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?

You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 8:39:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
having a low time preference helps too.

Just for kicks, Jeffrey Tucker points out that environmentalist frenzies during the 80's lead to regulations on home water consumption even though it only accounts for 1% of fresh water use.

Your shower is maxxed out at 2.5 gallons per minute. You can take out the washer or buy special shower heads (multiple heads, 2.5gal/min each) to increase your standard of living. We all know that toilet tanks were also reduced in size.

Additionally, water heaters are often set at 120-130 deg f, but yeast grows at this temperature. Bump it up to 140 deg f. I think they set it low because children might burn themselves... use your own judgment. 140 is not that much hotter.

At any rate, I'm sympathetic to environmentalism. Respect for homesteading rights would actually impose much more stringent limits than lefty environmentalists want. Walter Block calls them watermelons: Green on the outside but red on the inside.

We want recognition of homesteaded claims to fresh air and fishing rights, potentially blocking many offshore drilling projects and tightening emission standards well below what cap and trade admits. Let the Coase Theorem sort the economics out :P
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:09:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You equate food to drugs no intellectual honesty here

At 8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?

You equate the defense of the nation to welfare and also I thought according to liberals morality was "relative" so you can make no moral arguments about this otherwise you are saying your morals are better than others.

You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:16:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 8:17:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Hmm...ranting? I just wanted to point out a few things. Of course this doesn't apply to all, but many poor people work incredibly hard and get little in return. Just my two cents. I do however, have a problem with welfare money going to lazy people who choose not to work and drug addicts who just waste it buying drugs.

Damn right I am ranting I am f##cking sick and tired of it. You don't like something don't buy it. But don't take my right away to buy something or not to buy something. It's only freedom of choice if you want to execute human fetuses everything else is subject to liberal scrutiny and what they think is best for you.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think those that work hard and don't get enough money should get welfare.
I think taxes to fund war is wrong and immoral and should be optional (donation) along with taxes for welfare.
I think taxes on what you consume should not be any higher just because they are bad about you.
I think drugs should be legal with more regulations on the ones that drastically affect your judgement (not huge amount of regulation more regulation as in alcohol vs tobacco)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:36:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
You equate food to drugs no intellectual honesty here

And what is the difference? Liberal claims about salt and how unnecessary it is can be directly compared to drugs. It's just not as obviously bad for you. The true approach is to give individuals all liberty.

At 8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?


You equate the defense of the nation to welfare and also I thought according to liberals morality was "relative" so you can make no moral arguments about this otherwise you are saying your morals are better than others.


You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:41:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:


At 8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?
You equate food to drugs no intellectual honesty here
You eating unhealthy food doesn't affect me. Me doing unhealthy drugs doesn't affect you. What's the difference?

You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
You equate the defense of the nation to welfare and also I thought according to liberals morality was "relative" so you can make no moral arguments about this otherwise you are saying your morals are better than others.
From this "sentence" I take it you think I'm a liberal. I am not. I do not think morality is relative, and I am saying that my morals are better than yours. Defense of the nation? Our current wars have absolutely nothing to do with that. They are nation-building wars of aggression. Our interventions in the Middle East not only aren't necessary for national defense, they make us less safe. U.S. troops killing civilians helps Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups recruit, creating more terrorists and endangering our country.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:50:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:41:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/27/2010 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:


At 8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?
You equate food to drugs no intellectual honesty here
You eating unhealthy food doesn't affect me. Me doing unhealthy drugs doesn't affect you. What's the difference?

You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
You equate the defense of the nation to welfare and also I thought according to liberals morality was "relative" so you can make no moral arguments about this otherwise you are saying your morals are better than others.
From this "sentence" I take it you think I'm a liberal. I am not. I do not think morality is relative, and I am saying that my morals are better than yours. Defense of the nation? Our current wars have absolutely nothing to do with that. They are nation-building wars of aggression. Our interventions in the Middle East not only aren't necessary for national defense, they make us less safe. U.S. troops killing civilians helps Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups recruit, creating more terrorists and endangering our country.

No intellectual honesty> A person who eats a big mac is no different than a person who uses drugs. There can be no intellectual debate.

As far as the wars go. We can fight them there or we can fight them in your front yard. Are you so naive to think that if we just pull out of the middle east and say we are sorry it will all just go away.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 9:57:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:50:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/27/2010 9:41:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/27/2010 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:


At 8/27/2010 8:35:21 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You criticize liberal environmentalists for trying to take away your right to eat what you want, but you oppose drug legalization? How is them taking away your right to eat unhealthy foods different from you taking away my right to put what I want in my body?
You equate food to drugs no intellectual honesty here
You eating unhealthy food doesn't affect me. Me doing unhealthy drugs doesn't affect you. What's the difference?

You don't like liberals taking away your money to pay for welfare, but you want to take my money away to fund the murder of civilians in immoral wars? How is "being punished by the confiscation of wealth" for war spending better than for welfare spending?
You equate the defense of the nation to welfare and also I thought according to liberals morality was "relative" so you can make no moral arguments about this otherwise you are saying your morals are better than others.
From this "sentence" I take it you think I'm a liberal. I am not. I do not think morality is relative, and I am saying that my morals are better than yours. Defense of the nation? Our current wars have absolutely nothing to do with that. They are nation-building wars of aggression. Our interventions in the Middle East not only aren't necessary for national defense, they make us less safe. U.S. troops killing civilians helps Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups recruit, creating more terrorists and endangering our country.

No intellectual honesty> A person who eats a big mac is no different than a person who uses drugs. There can be no intellectual debate.
OK. We agree that someone eating a Big Mac is no different than someone using drugs. (although eating a Big Mac is more likely to kill you than most drugs)
As far as the wars go. We can fight them there or we can fight them in your front yard. Are you so naive to think that if we just pull out of the middle east and say we are sorry it will all just go away.
That's ridiculous. What makes you think they'd want to attack us if we weren't involved in the Middle East? Why do you think we've been the target of terrorist attacks? Do they just really hate our freedom? Or is it because our past interventions created most of that hatred?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 10:25:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:50:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
No intellectual honesty> A person who eats a big mac is no different than a person who uses drugs. There can be no intellectual debate.

You know way more people die every year due to obesity related health problems than from using drugs, right?

As far as the wars go. We can fight them there or we can fight them in your front yard. Are you so naive to think that if we just pull out of the middle east and say we are sorry it will all just go away.

False dichotomy.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 11:06:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 8:11:53 PM, sadolite wrote:

Is there no end to what environmentalists want to ban.

In a sense, murder is a "ban," isn't it? So don't try to act like we environmentalists are only about big brother government, unless you want to join me in anarchism. If you want to get rid of the government, brother, we can talk business. But you don't want to get rid of the government. You know why? Because YOU are the one that likes bans. You want to ban every god damn thing you can get your hands on and let the gov'ment into every aspect of our lives that you can while claiming you are for freedom in your own twisted, fvcked up sense of the word.

Is there no end to what liberal progressives want to prohibit me from doing or force me to do.

You really get off on the government getting its nose into our daily lives, as your pro-drug-war stance suggests. You support the rise of the pigs. Officers of the law breaking in our doors and putting us in prison because the chemicals in our body are of the incorrect type. You don't mind endocrine disruptors like phtalates and bisphenol-A in our food, MTBE coursing through the ground-water, C02 and mercury being spewed into the air, excess nutrients in run-off killing our game-fish, dozens of artificial chemicals present in every new-born infant in America that collect in their bodies and detectable from the very first day of life... No, you are more concerned about me smoking a joint in my home and making sure a fvcking pig is there to put a shotgun in my face... It's a pity I even know what that feeling is like considering I wouldn't hurt a fly. You love the pigs of authority so much you will sacrifice your own god-given rights for them; lay down your civil rights just so that you get the satisfaction of some of us losing them in turn. And then you come on here whining about some bans on businesses to stop them from destroying our food, destroying our land, destroying the animal life, destroying the atmosphere, destroying everything in this environment that we depend on for life itself? What the hell is wrong with you?

Is there no end to creating new taxes to punish peoples legal right to eat what the want. It is not the Conservative Republican that wants to decimate your civil liberties.

What a joke. Conservative Republicans hide behind this guise that they want freedom... They want the governent shoved up a woman's uterus, inside my home while I am smoking a joint while unwinding from work, inside the laboratory telling scientists what they can and can't study, stationed all across the border making sure people don't cross imaginary lines, patrolling the streets putting minorities in jail, filling our prisons so fast they can't even be built rapidly enough, spreading their religion by force of law, forcing a wedge in between class divisions to propell the rich farther up and force the poor farther down so that we can't even buy groceries without taking out a fvcking loan from the cash store... You really believe what your saying? You want freedom? Your idea of freedom is a metal cage to hold all of your enemies while you get rich playing by your own rules.

It is the Liberal Progressives Enviromentalist. They own this title. Their in your face about it and they don't give a rats a## what you think about it. They think they are morally superior, they think they are intellectually superior, but in reality they they are the most unoriginal, repeat the same socialist big govt idiots in the universe. When will they ever learn that when you take money from one group of people who work for it and give it to another group who doesn't work for it, both groups are equally uninclined to work. Why should the group who is given cradle to grave benefits work any harder. Being poor wasn't enough to get them motivated. And the person who busts his a## and works 60 to 80 hours a week is less inclined to work because his efforts will only be punished by the confiscation of his wealth. This has been tried hundreds and hundreds of times over the centuries. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Your right it doesn't work; so let's scrap this sh11y system and start with one that does. Socialism and capitalism are not the only two governmental styles in the universe. What we have now (capitalism) is perhaps the worst in history; in the 1950s the average family paid cash for a new house. CASH. Can you imagine that? One parent working one job paid cash for a new home. Now we have two parents working 4 jobs in between them taking out loans to buy groceries before their next check. We are going downhill fast and capitalism is carrying us straight towards our destruction. I personally can't wait for the destruction to come. We can't rebuild until we are destroyed and we have proved time and time again we won't make a change until it is well past too-late.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 12:15:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
While a "Welfare State" comprises of a safety net that provides the essentials of life for those unable to cater for themselves then a Welfare State is highly moral and good.

While a National Health Service provides essential health care that is free at the point of use then that is also highly moral and good.

But the moment that politicians start to use the Welfare State as a political tool and enhance what is offered by them or the party the represent, that is when it goes pear shaped because that is the point at which it becomes a market for buying votes.

Similarly the moment that an NHS gets into elective medical treatment or, as in the case of the UK, is audited by use of "performance tables" that have nothing to do with what the NHS should be delivering, that also is where things go wrong.

A Welfare State should come with its own constitution as should an NHS.

Both are far too valuable to be allowed to be tampered with by politicians at some time in the future.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 3:44:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 9:50:39 PM, sadolite wrote:

No intellectual honesty> A person who eats a big mac is no different than a person who uses drugs. There can be no intellectual debate.

Challenge me. "Typical fast food is more unhealthy than Heroin and probably just as addictive" or something along those lines.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 9:07:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 11:06:36 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:

I do believe I agree with this guy.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 9:21:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So gun rights is more important than abortion rights, drug rights, euthanasia rights, and marriage rights for gays? You're a hypocrite.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well My instincts were right. Many on this site want govt shoved up their a## and believe a cradle grave welfare state is a good thing. They learn nothing from history and believe this concept is new and that they are enlightened. Let me guess, It would have worked in the past but the the wrong people were in charge, this time we have really smart people trying it and it will work this time. There isn't enough money in the entire universe to quench the thirst of someone who believes in fairness and equality of outcome. Bow to your god called govt, through it you shall achieve "collective salvation" Also known as communism. I find it funny how so many compare things like food to drugs it's absolute nonsense. Or Islamic terrorists are the same as your average American christian trying to earn a living It is absolutely imbecilic. If this is considered the height of enlightenment and the pinnacle of the intellectual thought process, all of civilization will soon be doomed to a life of servitude and "Collective poverty" Except of course those who are at the top who know what is best for everyone, they of course will live a life of opulence and luxury beyond compare to what the very same people who condemn today will live tomorrow. They will be the all knowing good and honest rich people, not like the evil rich people of today.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2010 10:07:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
bunch of stupid crap about how we're all stupid liberals or something
lol. Most of the people disagreeing with you here are libertarians who want far less government than you do.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.

No I don't think I have a moral high ground and never said I did. I said I was sick and tired of liberal progressives and environmentalist thinking of any way they can to ban what ever it is that they deem not good for me or society. I have read every comment and those who disagree must want the things I stated to become the law of the land because they give no opposition. They only defend their ideology in a general reference. But it is their ideology that perpetuates the things I have stated. Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 12:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:

I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

What do you think is the huge difference?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 12:05:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.

No I don't think I have a moral high ground and never said I did. I said I was sick and tired of liberal progressives and environmentalist thinking of any way they can to ban what ever it is that they deem not good for me or society. I have read every comment and those who disagree must want the things I stated to become the law of the land because they give no opposition. They only defend their ideology in a general reference. But it is their ideology that perpetuates the things I have stated. Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

I agree that Big Macs and heroin aren't comparable. Big macs and other unhealthy fast food items are a leading contributor to obesity and heart disease, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Not only that, but the health complications caused by these fatty foods cost the economy billions of dollars. Heroin, on the other hand, very rarely kills anyone if it is responsibly used, and causes fewer and less serious health problems.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 12:07:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.

No I don't think I have a moral high ground and never said I did. I said I was sick and tired of liberal progressives and environmentalist thinking of any way they can to ban what ever it is that they deem not good for me or society.

And pray tell where have such groups posted in this thread?

I have read every comment and those who disagree must want the things I stated to become the law of the land because they give no opposition.

We oppose the fact you ban basically everything but guns, which is hypocritical.

They only defend their ideology in a general reference. But it is their ideology that perpetuates the things I have stated. Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

Both have negative health effects, and are addictive. The analogy is a decent one.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 12:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

If you're that confident then challenge me to a debate. Extra points if you don't look at any of my previous debates.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 5:32:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 12:05:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.

No I don't think I have a moral high ground and never said I did. I said I was sick and tired of liberal progressives and environmentalist thinking of any way they can to ban what ever it is that they deem not good for me or society. I have read every comment and those who disagree must want the things I stated to become the law of the land because they give no opposition. They only defend their ideology in a general reference. But it is their ideology that perpetuates the things I have stated. Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

I agree that Big Macs and heroin aren't comparable. Big macs and other unhealthy fast food items are a leading contributor to obesity and heart disease, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Not only that, but the health complications caused by these fatty foods cost the economy billions of dollars. Heroin, on the other hand, very rarely kills anyone if it is responsibly used, and causes fewer and less serious health problems.

So let me get this strait, you trust the judgement of someone who would use heroin to use heroin responsibly but us average Joe's out there who don't use drugs can't be trusted to monitor our own food intake. So you and people like you I am assuming would legalize drugs and ban big macs. Now I have been enlightened. NOT!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2010 5:34:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/30/2010 5:32:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/30/2010 12:05:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/30/2010 11:58:22 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/29/2010 10:01:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/29/2010 9:59:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
Rant

You're an idiot, really and truly. You've ignored every comment on thsi thread, blanketed us as commie liberals and think you have some form of moral highground.

No I don't think I have a moral high ground and never said I did. I said I was sick and tired of liberal progressives and environmentalist thinking of any way they can to ban what ever it is that they deem not good for me or society. I have read every comment and those who disagree must want the things I stated to become the law of the land because they give no opposition. They only defend their ideology in a general reference. But it is their ideology that perpetuates the things I have stated. Also I see comments comparing a big mac sandwich to heroin and you call me an idiot.

I agree that Big Macs and heroin aren't comparable. Big macs and other unhealthy fast food items are a leading contributor to obesity and heart disease, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Not only that, but the health complications caused by these fatty foods cost the economy billions of dollars. Heroin, on the other hand, very rarely kills anyone if it is responsibly used, and causes fewer and less serious health problems.

So let me get this strait, you trust the judgement of someone who would use heroin to use heroin responsibly but us average Joe's out there who don't use drugs can't be trusted to monitor our own food intake. So you and people like you I am assuming would legalize drugs and ban big macs. Now I have been enlightened. NOT!

There are far, far more irresponsible fast-food users than irresponsible heroin users. And no, I would have both of those things be legal. But if I had to choose one to ban, it would be Big Macs.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.