Socialist?

Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when there children need braces for there teeth. However...let someone introduce a law letting John Q Public have access to a few crumbs of taxpayer supported healthcare, and guess what: It becomes a SOCIALIST program, a program so evil, it threatens to undermine the very fabric of our fine country, and turn it into the SOVIET UNION! Which begs 2 questions:

1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??

2. Why is this program only "Socialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲

Dude, it's time.

http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm

Originally posted by bill718
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲

You know when you go to the toilet and you have that sticky poo that costs half a toilet role to wipe away?

Well, what you deposit in the toilet is exactly the same as a conservative.

You shouldn't expect faeces to form educated opinions.

You should try to eat more fiber.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Dude, it's time.

http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm

Their not going to care what you think of there English because they don't want to live they're in any case.

Originally posted by bill718
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲

Stop being a socialist!! 😠

Originally posted by shavixmir
You know when you go to the toilet and you have that sticky poo that costs half a toilet role to wipe away?

Well, what you deposit in the toilet is exactly the same as a conservative.

You shouldn't expect faeces to form educated opinions.

Apparently socialists only have this problem. I have no such issues. 😛

Originally posted by sh76
Their not going to care what you think of there English because they don't want to live they're in any case.

I apologize deeply for my lack of correct grammer. Now that we have that cleared up, would anyone care to answer my questions?

Originally posted by bill718
I apologize deeply for my lack of correct grammer. Now that we have that cleared up, would anyone care to answer my questions?

Clearly the only answer you care about is the one shav already gave.

Originally posted by bill718
I apologize deeply for my lack of correct grammer. Now that we have that cleared up, would anyone care to answer my questions?

First,welcome back, Bill! 🙂

As for your questions, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are little more than meaningless tautologies built on strawmen.

However, to humor you:

1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??

If something that you or your family needs is free or cheap and available, you would be stupid not to take it, even if you believe philosophically that the government should not provide it. I didn't think stimulus checks we all got a few years ago were a very good idea, but you can bet your bottom dollar I cashed mine when I got it. Am I supposed to sacrifice the best interests of my family to make some obscure political point that nobody will notice anyway? Come on, Bill. Come back to us, man.

2. Why is this program only "Socialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

I'm sorry. I really am. I read that question 10 times and I just can't figure out what you're looking for. The question presupposes that programs are "socialist" when the public wants it and that it is not when lawmakers want it? What does that mean? Where did you get this basis for the question? I'd love to try to answer it, but can you please clarify a circumstance when an otherwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?

Originally posted by sh76
First,welcome back, Bill! 🙂

As for your questions, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are little more than meaningless tautologies built on strawmen.

However, to humor you:

1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??

If something that you or your family needs is free or cheap a rwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?

Watching the GOP candidates constantly call President Obama a "socialist" and the droves of their ignorant followers who follow suit, how can call his question srawman?

PS: Your answers were quite interesting, considering you chastised Buffett for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity. And he didn't even personally gain from that.

Originally posted by bill718
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲

A conservative assumes that everyone is looking out for themselves. So in addition to going out and getting a job and working hard and assuming that everyone else will do the same-- they also cash the checks. Even if they shake their heads over the government's foolishness -- they and only they are responsible for their well-being, so naturally they take the money.

A socialist looks out for himself, too, and so cashes the check. But then he spends so much time looking at others and trying to decide who should do what when and how and for how much that he hasn't got time to do any actual work. So he has to lobby Congress to make sure that enough wealth is distributed away from people who actually serve customers (and so get rich) to himself to that he can live comfortably.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Watching the GOP candidates constantly call President Obama a "socialist" and the droves of their ignorant followers who follow suit, how can call his question srawman?

PS: Your answers were quite interesting, considering you chastised Buffett for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity. And he didn't even personally gain from that.

I did not chastise Buffett "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity." I chastise Buffett for "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity" and, out of the other side of his mouth, screaming about how the government needs more money and people should pay more taxes.

In any case, there is no comparison between accepting government medical services that your family needs and taking the extraordinary step of removing tens of billions of dollars from US jurisdiction. Moreover, a bit part of Buffett's recent message is this "matching contribution" thing he did with Congressmen's contributions. If you want to lead by example, dealing the most significant individual blow to the US Treasury in US history is not exactly a shining example for his philosophy.

Originally posted by sh76
I did not chastise Buffett "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity." I chastise Buffett for "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity" and, out of the other side of his mouth, screaming about how the government needs more money and people should pay more taxes.

In any case, there is no comparison between acceptin ow to the US Treasury in US history is not exactly a shining example for his philosophy.

We've covered this. Even for someone as wealthy as Buffett, one single person's taxes is a drop in the bucket relative to total tax revenues and the national debt.

I also confronted you with Republicans who are in the bottom 50% who say we should "expand the tax base" but don't volunteer to contribute. You say they're not being hypocrites. I agree, but then I don't have a double standard based on party affiliation.

Do you really think Buffet thinks his tax-matching challenge to Congress is will lower the debt? Once again, it won't make a substantive difference. He's drawing attention to the issue, nothing more.

He knows the ONLY thing that will generate a (meaningful) amount of revenue is if the tax code is changed so that ALL top earners such as himself and Romney contribute more.

Originally posted by spruce112358
A conservative assumes that everyone is looking out for themselves.

...Except when they're not, during which time they're passing medieval laws dictating what everyone can and can't do with their own bodies.