Cheezy's Very Own Conservative Echo Chamber!

[Animal]

U.S. government checks constituted 40% of farmers’ income in 2020: USDA

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-g ... 1609444429

what's the point here? That farmers did okay?

I don't know if it is why CQ posted it but Farmers did more than ok, they received 35 BILLION in relief for an "overblown pandemic" on top of their annual 12 BILLION in annual government assistance. I bet real Conservatives are livid.

they story said it was because of Trump. So I assume CQ saw it as a bad thing.

[spudoc]

What is the folly?

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

and yet the democratic side is one we get bill after bill after bill after bill after bill. there is no end to their analogies for "starving". student loans, health care, school supplies, teacher supplies, child care, welfare benefits, reparations, food stamps, housing, etc, etc, etc....

You need to look up the definition of public good.

[CaptQuint]

Provide for the general welfare

[Animal]

slop the trough in exchange for votes so they don't have to go out and fend for themselves.

[CaptQuint]

[CaptQuint]

[CHEEZY17]

Fuckin A thats perfect and the faithful on both sides cant/wont admit the folly of each position.

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Oh, you're back? Cool. I've been waiting for your evidence that I think the virus is a hoax or that I'm a denier. You seem to have disappeared for awhile there after that bold proclamation I asked you to back up. Since you've had all this time to find the evidence to buttress your claim I'm eager to see what you found!

As far as this goes: Schmertz explained it pretty well and its not surprising you think its idiotic as you're one of the faithful.
"Public Good" does not equal "ZOMG LETS USE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES BECAUSE THAT ONE GUY OVER THERE MIGHT BE HUNGRY!1111"

In fact in could be argued that it is a greater public good to use our resources in a responsible manner to ensure its effectiveness and distribution to those who truly need it.

[Stapes]

Fuckin A thats perfect and the faithful on both sides cant/wont admit the folly of each position.

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Oh, you're back? Cool. I've been waiting for your evidence that I think the virus is a hoax or that I'm a denier. You seem to have disappeared for awhile there after that bold proclamation I asked you to back up. Since you've had all this time to find the evidence to buttress your claim I'm eager to see what you found!

As far as this goes: Schmertz explained it pretty well and its not surprising you think its idiotic as you're one of the faithful.
"Public Good" does not equal "ZOMG LETS USE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES BECAUSE THAT ONE GUY OVER THERE MIGHT BE HUNGRY!1111"

In fact in could be argued that it is a greater public good to use our resources in a responsible manner to ensure its effectiveness and distribution to those who truly need it.

Except Republicans don't want to use any resources for anybody but themselves. Remember their mantra.... " I got mine fuck you"

[Animal]

our attempts at "public good" completely ruined several generations of one race in this country.

[spudoc]

Fuckin A thats perfect and the faithful on both sides cant/wont admit the folly of each position.

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Oh, you're back? Cool. I've been waiting for your evidence that I think the virus is a hoax or that I'm a denier. You seem to have disappeared for awhile there after that bold proclamation I asked you to back up. Since you've had all this time to find the evidence to buttress your claim I'm eager to see what you found!

As far as this goes: Schmertz explained it pretty well and its not surprising you think its idiotic as you're one of the faithful.
"Public Good" does not equal "ZOMG LETS USE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES BECAUSE THAT ONE GUY OVER THERE MIGHT BE HUNGRY!1111"

In fact in could be argued that it is a greater public good to use our resources in a responsible manner to ensure its effectiveness and distribution to those who truly need it.

I don’t live here like some of you guys so I don’t always respond in a timely fashion. As for the COVID denial you are right, I have no evidence. I confused you with Biker because you conservatives all look alike to me.
As to your argument that judicious use of resources would be ideal, well nobody is arguing against that. I’m arguing that the conservative stance that because there could be waste and fraud in social programs we need to discontinue them all together. And before you blow a selfish little blood vessel in your selfish little brain, I know you didn’t that but the meme did.

[spudoc]

our attempts at "public good" completely ruined several generations of one race in this country.

250 years of slavery followed by 100 years of segregation probably had more to do with fucking up blacks than 60 years of public assistance

[spudoc]

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Oh, you're back? Cool. I've been waiting for your evidence that I think the virus is a hoax or that I'm a denier. You seem to have disappeared for awhile there after that bold proclamation I asked you to back up. Since you've had all this time to find the evidence to buttress your claim I'm eager to see what you found!

As far as this goes: Schmertz explained it pretty well and its not surprising you think its idiotic as you're one of the faithful.
"Public Good" does not equal "ZOMG LETS USE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES BECAUSE THAT ONE GUY OVER THERE MIGHT BE HUNGRY!1111"

In fact in could be argued that it is a greater public good to use our resources in a responsible manner to ensure its effectiveness and distribution to those who truly need it.

I don’t live here like some of you guys so I don’t always respond in a timely fashion. As for the COVID denial you are right, I have no evidence. I confused you with Biker because you conservatives all look alike to me.
As to your argument that judicious use of resources would be ideal, well nobody is arguing against that. I’m arguing that the conservative stance that because there could be waste and fraud in social programs we need to discontinue them all together. And before you blow a selfish little blood vessel in your selfish little brain, I know you didn’t say that but the meme did.

[Cassandros]

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

[Animal]

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

I would accept that if people would just realize that is the point to begin the compromise and meet in the middle at a rational acceptable method of solving both sides concerns. You have to have a giant political stick right up your ass not to recognize that.

No one is promoting either one of those sides in their extreme form.

[spudoc]

What is the folly?

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

You’re actually saying that taxation is as onerous on the haves as starvation is on the have nots? Really? That is really fucked up

[Cassandros]

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

I would accept that if people would just realize that is the point to begin the compromise and meet in the middle at a rational acceptable method of solving both sides concerns. You have to have a giant political stick right up your ass not to recognize that.

No one is promoting either one of those sides in their extreme form.

Some are promoting these sides in extremes...

In fact, the extremes are steady pulling moderates more and more year after year.

Which is a very, destructive tread, if it continues.

[Cassandros]

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

You’re actually saying that taxation is as onerous on the haves as starvation is on the have nots? Really? That is really fucked up

Your attempt to over-simplify what I said is foolish at best.

The fairy tale of just taxing the 'haves' to solve all the problems is exactly that: a fairy tale.

If you have compassion for your fellow man, you have to find solutions that don't revolve stealing from one to help another.

[CHEEZY17]

Hate to burst y'alls bubble but conservatives are more generous in their giving:

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/ ... generosity (see graphs 15 and 16)

"Taken together, the two studies mentioned exist as inconvenient truths for those who equate wealth with a lack of charity and/or overall stinginess. America’s rich are plainly quite generous, and then America’s Republican rich are statistically quite a bit more generous than are Democrats. The latter is particularly inconvenient for a left desperate to paint a picture of “rich” and “Republican” as something that’s indicative of haughty disdain for the poor and unwell."
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articl ... 03479.html

"The more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions, the study found.
The researchers said this finding fell within the broad political tendencies of traditional Republicans who favor less government intervention and more donations from the private sector to make up for the lack of government assistance."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your ... hropy.html

I could go on but why bother? They have their narrative.

[spudoc]

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

You’re actually saying that taxation is as onerous on the haves as starvation is on the have nots? Really? That is really fucked up

Your attempt to over-simplify what I said is foolish at best.

The fairy tale of just taxing the 'haves' to solve all the problems is exactly that: a fairy tale.

If you have compassion for your fellow man, you have to find solutions that don't revolve stealing from one to help another.

Calling taxation theft kind of strips away your unbiased observer act. You’re just another anti tax nutter

[Cassandros]

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

One side says, 'we need to feed everyone, even if we have to take from others to do so.'

The other says, 'we only want feed those who truly cannot feed themselves and no one else. Even if that means a few have to starve.'

Both of these stances are morally wrong, and there is also no easy answers to these kinds of questions.

You’re actually saying that taxation is as onerous on the haves as starvation is on the have nots? Really? That is really fucked up

Your attempt to over-simplify what I said is foolish at best.

The fairy tale of just taxing the 'haves' to solve all the problems is exactly that: a fairy tale.

If you have compassion for your fellow man, you have to find solutions that don't revolve stealing from one to help another.

Calling taxation theft kind of strips away your unbiased observer act. You’re just another anti tax nutter

Again, these issues are not so simple...

There are good taxes, there are bad, and there is outright theft.

Lets start with an easy one: which category is appropriate for the every present "sin tax"?

[necronomous]

Fuckin A thats perfect and the faithful on both sides cant/wont admit the folly of each position.

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

Its why im a registered independent.

You're a registered retard

Talk about stupid retorts. I know I hurt your feelings. Its ok, no one else here really thinks you're smart either. They will pretend to make you feel good, but really they know you're fucking stupid. Its ok little buddy, you'll hit puberty one day.

[necronomous]

Fuckin A thats perfect and the faithful on both sides cant/wont admit the folly of each position.

Explain the folly of the democrats position here.

its not the least bit surprising that you can't see it.

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

Exactly

[necronomous]

"The faithful on both sides can't/won't see it"
Cue: spudoc

What is the folly?

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

How do you know get that the democrat way is ludicrous and will run out of whatever you're just attempting to give away. Its unsustainable. You, in the end would cause more people to need and no supplies or money to provide to anyone.

[necronomous]

Actually the whole point of this is to show the foolishness of both attitudes.

Taken to the extreme, liberal policies would make us run out of money and/or put everyone in the poor house. Money isn't limitless. Accepting many undeserving "deadbeats" to make sure all the deserving get benefits isn't a sustainable model.

But the extreme conservative policy can be Darwinian/Conscienceless. Accepting harm to many people deserving of aid so that a few "deadbeats" don't get undeserved benefits shouldn't be acceptable either.

I think it's obvious that somewhere in-between is the ideal. And trying to help as many as we can get "off the gubmint dole" as possible should be a big part of that.

So the democrats in this meme think everybody should be fed and that is somehow wrong?

Actually... yes.

Read what FSchmertz said (that you just quoted) again.

It is a spot on assessment.

Its idiotic. If we are to take each stance as the equal opposite (and that's what the meme is doing) then the republican side is reprehensible while the democrat side is just over generous. One side says there is a lack of food for one so feed everyone and one side says there is a lack of food for many but someone might game the system so fuck everybody and these are somehow moral equivalents?

and yet the democratic side is one we get bill after bill after bill after bill after bill. there is no end to their analogies for "starving". student loans, health care, school supplies, teacher supplies, child care, welfare benefits, reparations, food stamps, housing, etc, etc, etc....

You need to look up the definition of public good.

You need to look up unsustainable.

[necronomous]

Provide for the general welfare

General, not all encompassing. And welfare here doesn't mean literal money.