The left has gone full retard

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you got destroyed on the facts (again) and the best you can do is a few weak ad hominems.

Looks like you need more practice posting.

You didn't post what I asked for though?

As for ad hominem, you made it personal first ya horses ass.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It seems like the West generally is bad at balancing their books in the last 30 years or so...why might that be? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All you would have to do is look at my Facebook page. Again, it seems your viewpoint is informed by ridiculous false assumptions and a lack of empathy.

When we are so keen to don the mantle of rational piety, let us not succumb to the fickle inclinations of emotion nor ever fall remiss in acknowledgement of empathy as a bane to reason, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be.


Would you care to tell us more about any of these (paraphrased) points that you previously made?

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-liberals are, generally speaking, good, smart, faultless people.

-conservatives are, generally speaking, stupid, nasty, fearful people

-Jews are actually white, which explains their contempt for and oppression of the brown Arabs.

-Blacks are incapable of making good decisions because they are the descendants of slaves.

-Asians don't matter because of reasons.

-Light skin is better than dark skin

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you got destroyed on the facts (again) and the best you can do is a few weak ad hominems.

Looks like you need more practice posting.

Were the facts you listed all that was needed to support your case? I can tell you teh sky is blue but if it doesn't relate to the message you are trying to spread.... you have a problem. Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You are trying to say welfare is bad because it doesn't help the poor become "un-poor". However, the only thing that graph MIGHT demonstrate is the current way we spend welfare monies has limited effect on the poor with the current economic controls we are operating under.

Basically, your "DESTROYED BY FACTS" equates to arguing about gravity while using chlorophyll causing grass to be green as proof.

In summary you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.


You just got destroyed by logic.

[Raev]

Wait, so your argument is we should keep doing what we are doing even though it doesn't work because it might work if we did it differently? This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever written on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

The burden of proof is on you, the mongoloid socialist, who wants to change things. I await your bulletproof empirical evidence that socialism works with anxious anticipation.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait, so your argument is we should keep doing what we are doing even though it doesn't work because it might work if we did it differently? This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever written on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

The burden of proof is on you, the mongoloid socialist, who wants to change things. I await your bulletproof empirical evidence that socialism works with anxious anticipation.

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In summary you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

You can't even figure out the argument.....you misapply the burden of proof. Yet you call me dumb? Refer to my quote.

Since you didn't address my point, I take it that you accepted the fact that your "facts" were non representative of your argument?

[Pokesan]

let's just take noted concern troll "bob pfeiffer"s word for it

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending.

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

What data is necessary? The why is the question.. the graph doesn't detail the "why". You seem confused, you think I'm making an argument that welfare spending is effective ever. I simple stated the "destroyed by facts" he provided are not enough to lead to his message.

[JurisDictum]

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll." Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering the stated goal of welfare programs in the States is not to lift people out of poverty -- you can't even honestly argue that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.