UJRefugees.net

Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:48 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:52 pm

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:38 pm 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.

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:50 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

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....

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:32 pm

Stapes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:29 pm

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?

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:38 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:38 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

Animal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:44 am our attempts at "public good" completely ruined several generations of one race in this country.

spudoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:48 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:38 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

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.

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm
"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?

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am
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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:10 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:12 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:22 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:12 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm
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.

spudoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:30 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:22 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:12 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

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

Stapes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:35 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:32 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:32 pm

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

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:07 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:41 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:47 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 pm
"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?

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:45 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:50 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:35 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:40 pm

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:34 pm

FSchmertz wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:51 pm Provide for the general welfare