Averick
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!
17 Apr 2008, 7:00 pm
17 Apr 2008, 8:08 pm
17 Apr 2008, 11:15 pm
18 Apr 2008, 1:19 am
DeaconBlues wrote:
I can't believe you people are still feeding the troll...
but they're really really really really really making progress!!
the intolerant idiots will always be intolerant idiots...which is why we're not supposed to write laws to accommodate them.
18 Apr 2008, 1:24 am
18 Apr 2008, 2:25 am
18 Apr 2008, 8:56 am
Everchanging
Toucan
Joined: 2 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 295
Location: In my ivory tower where I don't have to pretend to care what you think any more.
18 Apr 2008, 9:19 am
This has been sent to FSTDT! 
18 Apr 2008, 11:22 am
18 Apr 2008, 9:51 pm
18 Apr 2008, 9:55 pm
Ragtime wrote:
[
It teaches that, if someone has too little money, it's because someone else stole money from him. As if that's the only cause for someone not having enough money. It couldn't just be that he's a lazy son of b***h, could it? 
Oh, no! 
It teaches that, if someone has too little money, it's because someone else stole money from him.
As if that's the only cause for someone not having enough money. It couldn't just be that he's a lazy son of b***h, could it? Oh, no! Given history that tends to be low on the scale. I mean, the class war and wage slavery, child labor, etc..
Quote:
Interestingly, in an opportunity-packed country like America, one almost has to exert effort to remain poor. There are government handouts galore based on your race, the number of kids you have, and how little you chose to work last year.
I wonder why so many black people died during and after Katrina hit...
Quote:
Cause: I work full-time all year, and therefore earn significant money.
Effect: The government says I owe them on April 15.
Cause: Someone else doesn't work very much all year.
Effect: The government determines that it should pay that person on April 15.
So, the government rewards you for not working.
It also rewards you for producing more kids than is wise.
So, basically, the government rewards 1) laziness, and 2) foolishness.
And, the golden part of it all is?
Yours truly, along with the other hard workers, gets to pay that reward! Woo-hoo, what a treat for us!
So, the government is into the business of redistributing the money of those who worked hard all year,
to those who sat at home on their asses all year, and cranked out another kid they couldn't afford to care for.
Effect: The government says I owe them on April 15.
Cause: Someone else doesn't work very much all year.
Effect: The government determines that it should pay that person on April 15.
So, the government rewards you for not working.
It also rewards you for producing more kids than is wise.
So, basically, the government rewards 1) laziness, and 2) foolishness.
And, the golden part of it all is?
Yours truly, along with the other hard workers, gets to pay that reward! Woo-hoo, what a treat for us!
So, the government is into the business of redistributing the money of those who worked hard all year,
to those who sat at home on their asses all year, and cranked out another kid they couldn't afford to care for.
O RLY
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... _feed.html
Quote:
Further, this is naturally an incentive for those who were lazy last year to -- guess what? Be lazy NEXT year, too! More government handouts, FTW! So, basically, the government is promoting lazy slobbery -- funded by the working man.
(Sorry for the tanget, but it's all true.)
(Sorry for the tanget, but it's all true.)
So Clinton slashing Welfare when the Military-Industrial Complex takes much more money is better?
19 Apr 2008, 9:49 am
19 Apr 2008, 11:09 am
NarfMann
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: Centennial, CO
19 Apr 2008, 10:11 pm
I'm always amused when the most obviously idiotic threads get the most responses. I'm even more amused at the fact that I'm contributing to it. 
20 Apr 2008, 2:57 am
Ragtime wrote:
Delirium wrote:
ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT TO A MARRIAGE. TWO FULLY GROWN ADULT HUMANS CAN. Marriage should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender.
Okay, so that's one major change in the historic definition of marriage. Why, then, wouldn't another major change to the definition of marriage come along? My point is so simple, I'm tired of repeating it to people who keep pretending not to understand it.
Ragtime's spiritual grandfather wrote:
If women get the vote, what's next? Dogs? Women getting the vote would be one major change in the historic definition of suffrage. Why, then, wouldn't another major change to the definition of suffrage come along? My point is so simple, I'm tired of repeating it to people who keep pretending not to understand it.
You got the answer to your slippery slope argument on the first page: adult humans are the only beings we know who are capable of consenting to marriage. Allowing another group of adult humans to marry is a minor change compared to allowing marriage with those who can't consent. The slippery slope exists only in the minds of those who want it to exist because they haven't got a better argument against homosexual marriage, and I am tired of repeating this to people who keep pretending not to understand it.
20 Apr 2008, 1:11 pm
zendell wrote:
Griff wrote:
zendell wrote:
Animals can't consent.
Aha! But that's where you're wrong, sir! They are quite capable of communicating their wishes.Interesting
Quote:
Griff wrote:
zendell wrote:
It's silly and sickening.
Oh, sir! Don't tell me you've never shagged with members of other species!Absolutely not! But thanks for letting us know what you are into.
