Jump to content


- - - - -

Definition of Failure : Obama repeals Obamcare


#61 RPGNinja   CAG in Training CAGiversary!   378 Posts   Joined 2.3 Years Ago  

RPGNinja

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:04 AM

WTF you're like a cartoon character.
 
Do you just take your criticism of the ACA from tv/radio hosts? It's a pretty weak pro-business piece of legislation. Who is getting "addicted"? The asshole with a chronic illness who can finally buy insurance?
 
I'm curious, are you a nasty rich guy or just confused?


I don't even make 10 dollars an hour at my current job. Far from rich. Do you just learning to MSNBC all day to find your talking points? Yeah good luck "finally buying insurance" when you couldn't even log onto the site and your premiums will skyrocket and you will lose your current plan after being promised that it wasn't going to happen. Seriously you might want to look at yourself first because you sound like you have been living in a cave.

Do you even realize how Obamacare works? It has to rely on the younger people to sign up to even have a shot at succeeding. Add into that that most young people would rather pay the penalty then sign up and you have a recipe for a disaster among other things.

#62 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6054 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:11 AM

I dont see the rich paying more in taxes being a valid point when they have the majority of the money.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#63 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1486 Posts   Joined 5.6 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:59 AM

Yeah rich people need to pay more money because the rest of us are poor. 



#64 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6054 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 05 January 2014 - 03:09 AM

Some days I wonder why so many Vs. Old timers don't post anymore. Today is not one of those days.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#65 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 05 January 2014 - 03:58 AM

Utter train wreck. Life is short. When the stupid hits a threshold, better to just let it go.

It's.... so incredibly awful.
Posted Image

#66 RPGNinja   CAG in Training CAGiversary!   378 Posts   Joined 2.3 Years Ago  

RPGNinja

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:58 PM

Yeah rich people need to pay more money because the rest of us are poor.


Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".

#67 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

Some days I wonder why so many Vs. Old timers don't post anymore. Today is not one of those days.


I still read the threads every once in a while. It's worth it just to see the occasional goofs, like when the conservatives/republicans/libertarians (whatever they want to be called these days) end up arguing with each other because there's no one else to argue with. Kind of like this gem:

Yeah rich people need to pay more money because the rest of us are poor.

Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".



#68 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   270 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:18 PM

I dont see the rich paying more in taxes being a valid point when they have the majority of the money.

I don't think that's the point. It's to make the people that say arbitrarily the rich need to pay more with no previous knowledge of how much they actually pay already think a little bit more. And delve deeper into what is a much more complicated topic.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#69 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6054 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 05 January 2014 - 06:15 PM

I don't think that's the point. It's to make the people that say arbitrarily the rich need to pay more with no previous knowledge of how much they actually pay already think a little bit more. And delve deeper into what is a much more complicated topic.

That isnt an argument.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#70 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1486 Posts   Joined 5.6 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:17 PM

Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".

Obviously sarcasm



#71 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   270 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:32 AM

The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of total income taxes in 2010. Yet they don't use the majority of the services. We have the most rich people than any other country. How did we come to have the most rich people? By embracing capitalism and free market ideals more than anyone else. We are by miles the most successful country in human history.

 

 

Wah there's so many rich people; as we type on our nice laptops. Wah America's so shitty, as we enjoy Xbox Live and luxuries our parents didn't even have.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#72 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6375 Posts   Joined 5.8 Years Ago  

Posted 06 January 2014 - 05:09 PM

The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of total income taxes in 2010. Yet they don't use the majority of the services. We have the most rich people than any other country. How did we come to have the most rich people? By embracing capitalism and free market ideals more than anyone else. We are by miles the most successful country in human history.

I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?

I guess being the sole industrialized country that wasn't completely ravaged by WW2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with where we are now.
 

Wah there's so many rich people; as we type on our nice laptops. Wah America's so shitty, as we enjoy Xbox Live and luxuries our parents didn't even have.

How many people are in that 10% and what percentage are they of the population?

Btw, depending on the age of a person's parents, those things didn't exist when they were young, so that's a dumb point on your part. One of the dumbest you've ever made actually. Aren't you only 17? You were 3 years old when the original xbox was released and 8 years old when the 360 was released. Please, tell us more about how little people had at 17 that are now twice your age. Hell, my PS1 is older than you are. :rofl:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#73 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:09 PM

I'm trying to find an argument that makes sense to square off with in this thread. I can't find one.

The rich have an extremely disproportionate amount of the capital in this country, ergo they pay the most in actual taxes. Even then the percent they pay relative to their income is incredibly low by our historical standard.

So what's your point Jruth? That I pay too much even though my effective tax rate is not only way below marginal tax rate but miles below the rate in historical standards? I don't get it.

Shit, my 20 month old son probably got a bigger tax break on his accounts than you did last year. He returned 21% tax free on his investments. If he paid his parents marginal rate he would have paid four figures on capital gains in taxes. Of course he wouldn't pay that because capital gains tax is 15% so my 10%'er drooling toddler would pay less in taxes on income than a McDonald's manager so, you know, lol.

You can always spot a poor arguing for rich people. They're the ones that think the rich pay anywhere near sticker price.
Posted Image

#74 UncleBob  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:31 AM

I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?


I swear it was less than a month ago where someone asked what percentage of taxes the rich should be paying and some other member of this forum went off on a rant about how that's not a real question, is a strawman, etc., etc... I wonder if that same person is willing to step in now and say the same thing....
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#75 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:59 AM

I swear it was less than a month ago where someone asked what percentage of taxes the rich should be paying and some other member of this forum went off on a rant about how that's not a real question, is a strawman, etc., etc... I wonder if that same person is willing to step in now and say the same thing....

Well if I understand your snark correctly, I'd say Ronald Reagan argued pretty decisively for a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich via his expansion of the EITC, AKA the poor people tax break so they don't pay taxes. He called the tax bill it was a major part of "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress". It's one of the few things that libs and conservatives largely agreed on then and largely agree on now, 30 years later. 

 

It's weird that I'm old enough to remember when conservatives enacted legislation that they now hate and yet they have absolutely no idea why they enacted it in the first place and if put on the spot, would almost certainly swear that it was a Democrat that did it. 

 

There was a reason. But then again, well, we're talking about a group that half the time don't understand the difference between marginal and effective. Nuance is the least of our problems. 


Posted Image

#76 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   270 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:49 AM

I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?

I guess being the sole industrialized country that wasn't completely ravaged by WW2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with where we are now.
 
How many people are in that 10% and what percentage are they of the population?

Btw, depending on the age of a person's parents, those things didn't exist when they were young, so that's a dumb point on your part. One of the dumbest you've ever made actually. Aren't you only 17? You were 3 years old when the original xbox was released and 8 years old when the 360 was released. Please, tell us more about how little people had at 17 that are now twice your age. Hell, my PS1 is older than you are. :rofl:

It's not even relevant to me nor do I care. Your envy drives those sorts of questions. We as Americans benefit from having all these rich people to pay for our services and at least keep up with Obama's deficits which it is documented the amount of money you would need to confiscate to keep up with his debts alone. No other country can benefit like us, Why? Because they never had rich people to begin with. Why? Because they're anti-capitalism and punish the rich.

 

 

I'm 20 so I was 7 when the original Xbox came out. Yea I agree they didn't exist when they were young, and our evil capitalism didn't stop these delightful advancements from happening. I mean what's Socialism's advancements in these areas? Where's Socialism's advancements in Science? Until you find one, I will invoke Occam's razor in that the simpler solution should always be preferred until it can be substituted with more complex reasoning. Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#77 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6054 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:48 AM

You know Adam Smith was pro progressive taxation? Can you nameva country with a different system?
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#78 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:59 AM

I remember being in my mid 20's and being a pretty raging libertarian. The inconsistencies really, really bothered me though. Like it seemed like the people that should have been on "our" side really weren't. Ayn Rand. Alan Greenspan. Adam Smith. Milton Friedman. They all broke down in (sometimes bizarre) ways that made me wonder why they would do or think such absurd things. I could never square why they would do it. Friedman argued for a guaranteed basic income. That's so goddamn communist that maybe it comes back around to being libertarian because... huh? wtf man. 

 

It really bothered me that I was arguing for a system that has never functionally existed. All the commie shitbags would always wave their hands and suddenly the managed economies of the 20th century didn't apply or have to be answered for. They didn't count! No true Scotsman! But in reality, they had gotten much closer to reality than anything anywhere near what I was advocating for. And then I thought history is a long time and with virtually no libertarianism government expressing in our human history at any level, it occurred to me that libertarianism obviously cannot be a natural state. 

 

I once had a college class where the prof and I would battle all class every class. She asked me to lunch and with a pen and paper, told me she wanted me to explain exactly what I wanted from a political and economic system. I delivered libertarian paradise. At the end of an exhaustive session, she asked how we would handle national defense. As I spoke, I realized how completely absurd the situation was. Here I was, a military veteran, explaining to a Hawaiian lychee farm owning Sociology hippy prof that trade would make it unnecessary but we would have defense covenants and why the Fuck is she snickering under her breath and omg I'm stark raving fucking mad aren't I. 

 

Hiding behind Occam's razor is not good enough. Do better. 

 

 

 

Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.

 

 

[citation needed]


Posted Image

#79 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:56 PM

I remember being in my mid 20's and being a pretty raging libertarian. The inconsistencies really, really bothered me though. Like it seemed like the people that should have been on "our" side really weren't. Ayn Rand. Alan Greenspan. Adam Smith. Milton Friedman. They all broke down in (sometimes bizarre) ways that made me wonder why they would do or think such absurd things. I could never square why they would do it. Friedman argued for a guaranteed basic income. That's so goddamn communist that maybe it comes back around to being libertarian because... huh? wtf man.

It really bothered me that I was arguing for a system that has never functionally existed. All the commie shitbags would always wave their hands and suddenly the managed economies of the 20th century didn't apply or have to be answered for. They didn't count! No true Scotsman! But in reality, they had gotten much closer to reality than anything anywhere near what I was advocating for. And then I thought history is a long time and with virtually no libertarianism government expressing in our human history at any level, it occurred to me that libertarianism obviously cannot be a natural state.

I once had a college class where the prof and I would battle all class every class. She asked me to lunch and with a pen and paper, told me she wanted me to explain exactly what I wanted from a political and economic system. I delivered libertarian paradise. At the end of an exhaustive session, she asked how we would handle national defense. As I spoke, I realized how completely absurd the situation was. Here I was, a military veteran, explaining to a Hawaiian lychee farm owning Sociology hippy prof that trade would make it unnecessary but we would have defense covenants and why the Fuck is she snickering under her breath and omg I'm stark raving fucking mad aren't I.

Hiding behind Occam's razor is not good enough. Do better.





[citation needed]


I had a similar journey except mine was also heavily influenced by the realization that wealth allows people to exploit those with less wealth. From my first year in college when one of our professors showed us Rpger and Me I had hated Michael Moore only to end up realizing that through all his over the top showmanship, he actually made some valid points regarding the rich exploiting those without wealth. Our political system is the only equalizing factor in the equation and the only form of power the 1%ers actually have any amount of fear regarding.

#80 UncleBob  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:22 PM

Well if I understand your snark correctly, I'd say Ronald Reagan argued pretty decisively for a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich via his expansion of the EITC, AKA the poor people tax break so they don't pay taxes. He called the tax bill it was a major part of "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress". It's one of the few things that libs and conservatives largely agreed on then and largely agree on now, 30 years later.


All that and you completely failed to answer DD's question - how much taxes should the rich pay? "More" isn't really an answer.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#81 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:07 PM

All that and you completely failed to answer DD's question - how much taxes should the rich pay? "More" isn't really an answer.

OK. Let's try a different way since I obviously don't understand the question. What's your answer?
Posted Image

#82 UncleBob  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:25 PM

Real talk, man. If you had asked ANYONE on this forum a question and they replied with "no, u", you would laugh them off the board as a troll, etc.

DD's question is "How much should the rich pay in taxes."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#83 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:10 PM

Real talk, man. If you had asked ANYONE on this forum a question and they replied with "no, u", you would laugh them off the board as a troll, etc.

DD's question is "How much should the rich pay in taxes."

I don't understand what you're asking for because I don't understand the utility of the answer so I thought that if you gave an answer, I could work backwards. That's not an unreasonable request unless you don't have an answer. I gave the oft hated reason poor people get tax rebates because I thought it illustrated the fact that Ronald Reagan signed a bill that not only exempted poors from paying taxes but actually incentivized work via direct transfer payments.

So you don't want that. That's dodging. OK. What do you want Bob? What does an answer look like in your mind? I've never shied away from a conversation and typically write about a thousand words too many when I do. So why is it difficult to get an answer to your own question?

That's not a loaded question. I just am curious. Withholding my opinion is something I've never been accused of.
Posted Image

#84 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6375 Posts   Joined 5.8 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:19 PM

It's not even relevant to me nor do I care. Your envy drives those sorts of questions. We as Americans benefit from having all these rich people to pay for our services and at least keep up with Obama's deficits which it is documented the amount of money you would need to confiscate to keep up with his debts alone. No other country can benefit like us, Why? Because they never had rich people to begin with. Why? Because they're anti-capitalism and punish the rich.

You're the one that wanted to use those data points to defend your "argument," so now they don't matter because of some strange idea that anyone that's critical about the rich has "wealth envy?" :rofl: That's your answer to going deeper into evidence that YOU provided? The aftermath of WW2 doesn't matter either? Holy shit, dude, we're talking about some pretty basic history here. Where do/did you go to school so I know never to send my child anywhere near there.

It also seems like you don't really have a good understanding of what socialism and capitalism are either. Hint: no country is one or the other.

 

I'm 20 so I was 7 when the original Xbox came out. Yea I agree they didn't exist when they were young, and our evil capitalism didn't stop these delightful advancements from happening. I mean what's Socialism's advancements in these areas? Where's Socialism's advancements in Science? Until you find one, I will invoke Occam's razor in that the simpler solution should always be preferred until it can be substituted with more complex reasoning. Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.

When you decide to define capitalism and socialism for us, you'll pretty much highlight exactly how ignorant you are about them and why your argument falls apart. I'll be waiting.

edit: Oh and since we're confessing our former conservative streaks, I was a self-described libertarian for a Very short stint in highschool. I was up late one night and caught Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and I heard him call himself a libertarian because he believed in more liberty. I was pretty ignorant about political parties until I was about maybe 19 and even more so when I was 14 or 15 when I saw this particular section of the show. Anywho, I said to myself that I believe in having more freedumz too, so I am now a libertarian and that was that. I never thought about it again until I was 19 and I started watching the show sporadically and realized how dumb it was to label yourself something that you know jack shit about.

I also called myself a homosexual once when I was in the 5th grade because my mother and teacher were piss poor in explaining what it meant by saying that it was boys that like boys. My reasoning was that my best friend is a dude and I like him(cause he's my friend...duh!) so I was a homosexual. Then my best friend was like "Yeah! I'm a homosexual too!" This was the mid-80's, so sex-ed and awareness weren't exactly at their peak. Good times...good times... :rofl:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#85 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   270 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:34 PM

Your first rather predictable argument didn't make any sense, that's why I dismissed it. Everyone know's they are already paying percentage wise more than other classes. So whats YOUR point? So it doesn't matter, to me, how much of their income you wanna tax if it's still more than a flat tax. And they're paying more into the collective pot than the rest of us. Sorta cut's to the core of conservatism don't ya know. You are completely misrepresenting my point.

 

 

Seriously? Your only argument is based on the assumption I don't the definitions of capitalism and socialism? Last time I checked the two are still in pretty stark contrast to your dismay I'm sure. I mean how many elements of socialism in our current system has caused such advancements? If you wanna go on record in saying that America of all places is predominantly socialist, go ahead.

 

 

I don't know Japan got nuked a couple times and they seem to offer more to the world than any two bit socialist could dream of.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#86 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6375 Posts   Joined 5.8 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:06 PM

Your first rather predictable argument didn't make any sense, that's why I dismissed it. Everyone know's they are already paying percentage wise more than other classes. So whats YOUR point? So it doesn't matter, to me, how much of their income you wanna tax if it's still more than a flat tax. And they're paying more into the collective pot than the rest of us. Sorta cut's to the core of conservatism don't ya know. You are completely misrepresenting my point.

No, I am illustrating your point as given: full of holes.

Here's the thing: Personal utility does not equal personal benefit.

Your perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads that allow me to get to and from work as much as my employees do because we use the same roads, so we should pay the same taxes. QED

My perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads more than my employees because I also get the added benefit of the roads for deliveries of my baked goods to market, transport of baking supplies, and take all the profits despite not being the one driving.

Simple analogy, but I think it illustrates my point very well: that it's rarely that simple and more often than not, layered.
 

Seriously? Your only argument is based on the assumption I don't the definitions of capitalism and socialism? Last time I checked the two are still in pretty stark contrast to your dismay I'm sure. I mean how many elements of socialism in our current system has caused such advancements? If you wanna go on record in saying that America of all places is predominantly socialist, go ahead.

The government is responsible for funding research and the development of technologies that created computers, the internet, and many of the things that allow us to be as wired/wireless as we are today. The space program wasn't funded by private industry, you know.

edit: Now give us your working definitions of those two terms.
 

I don't know Japan got nuked a couple times and they seem to offer more to the world than any two bit socialist could dream of.

Yeah...if Japan had help, who knows how much more advanced they'd be now! :roll:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#87 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   270 Posts   Joined 7.0 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:37 PM

 

No, I am illustrating your point as given: full of holes.

Here's the thing: Personal utility does not equal personal benefit.

Your perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads that allow me to get to and from work as much as my employees do because we use the same roads, so we should pay the same taxes. QED

My perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads more than my employees because I also get the added benefit of the roads for deliveries of my baked goods to market, transport of baking supplies, and take all the profits despite not being the one driving.

I don't understand why the hell I would care who benefits more from the road. Not to mention they are NOT paying the same taxes. Not now and not in a flat tax system.  And the capitalist, free market entrepreneur baker afforded you the luxury of having actual roads instead of dirt one's.

 

 

 

 

The government is responsible for funding research and the development of technologies that created computers, the internet, and many of the things that allow us to be as wired/wireless as we are today. The space program wasn't funded by private industry, you know.

Oh god not that old trope again. We all know Al Gore created the internet  :rofl: . Not only is that a big leap and very little to do with socialism but to assume America's private industry, the most dominant the world has ever seen couldn't have done some/all of those things is bullshit.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#88 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:50 PM

Japan has nation wide socialized medicine and fees are set by the government. So uh, yea.
Posted Image

#89 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6375 Posts   Joined 5.8 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:50 PM

I don't understand why the hell I would care who benefits more from the road. Not to mention they are NOT paying the same taxes. Not now and not in a flat tax system.  And the capitalist, free market entrepreneur baker afforded you the luxury of having actual roads instead of dirt one's.

And where did the baker acquire the capital for the business? Conjuring out of thin air? Are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs founded their corporations from nothing but their sole brains and spare parts in some shitty garage in the ghetto? 

I'm making a distinction between "personal usage" and "benefit" instead of using "usage" as a blanket term to confuse you. They're both "usage" in a general sense, so we agree that the business owner should pay more? I know this sounds pretty basic, but you screw up some pretty basic stuff.
 

Oh god not that old trope again. We all know Al Gore created the internet  :rofl: . Not only is that a big leap and very little to do with socialism but to assume America's private industry, the most dominant the world has ever seen couldn't have done some/all of those things is bullshit.

I didn't realize that DARPA was a private company with private funding. If I was going to say that Gore created the internet, I would've just said Gore created the internet by writing and compiling code with Tommy Lee Jones in Texas.

The manufacturing industry of the US was the only one left that was worth a damn after the rest of the world was bombed to hell and back. Last man standing on a shitpile eventually became the dominant industrial base of the world while everyone else was rebuilding? Nah...that sounds like pure bullshit, amirite?
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#90 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6054 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:44 PM

Japan has nation wide socialized medicine and fees are set by the government. So uh, yea.

If the most the guy can tell us about Japan's economy is that it's "ok" after being nuked, I'm not sure what value can be extracted.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell