Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61

Thread: What is the definition of a libtard?

  1. #16
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    Improving as a whole. Which means suitable housing for everyone. That improves the human condition as a whole.
    That has never happened in human history and never will happen. In fact, it is getting worse as the population is exploding.

    The more we help feed third world nations, the more they reproduce, and thus the cycle never stops.
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  2. #17
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeefan2009 View Post
    That has never happened in human history and never will happen. In fact, it is getting worse as the population is exploding.

    The more we help feed third world nations, the more they reproduce, and thus the cycle never stops.
    And, never before in human history, has man ever made it to the moon, until of course, man made it onto the moon.

    Never before in human history, has there ever been a nation that was founded on the ideals of secularism and equality for all until of course, we established that nation.

    Never before in human history, has a person had the computing power of 3 billion transistors on their desk. Until, of course, we did it.

    Never before in human history, has mankind harnesses the power of the atom. Until of course we did it.

    Never before in human history, has mankind ever harnessed fire. Until of course we did.

    Never before in human history, has mankind ever eradicated a disease. Until we did it. Twice.

    There were plenty of "Never before in human history events". Which of course happened. Or, do you need more examples of things that never occurred in human history?

    As an aside, did you know, there really is plenty of food to feed pretty much everyone on the globe. We just don't do it for some reason.
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  3. #18
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Hearing a whole lot about nothing now... I wonder who the "retards" are? Those who can't grasp simple concepts like entropy in systems, the people who can't grasp that because something has never been accomplished doesn't mean it can never be, or the people who think the only to solve world-wide hunger is to let people starve?
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  4. #19
    Member Mindcrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,640
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    Improving as a whole. Which means suitable housing for everyone. That improves the human condition as a whole.

    You really are selfish, huh?
    A noble goal. So who gets to be the final arbiter? Does everyone get to live in a $400k apt? If some do, why not everyone? If that is considered suitable, it's suitable for everyone, right? If we all are going to chip in to see that everyone is equal - who decides? The government? Is it ok for everyone to contribute 60/80/90% of their income so that everyone is equal (or has a suitable share)? Is this the goal? The government is already deciding what "rich" is, what other decisions are you willing to have the government decide? How many children you can have? How many pets you can have? Cars?

    Who gets to determine suitable?

  6. #21
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,948
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    Improving as a whole. Which means suitable housing for everyone. That improves the human condition as a whole.

    You really are selfish, huh?
    What ever....

    400k per apartment per family. Yep I'm selfish enough to say no. You can help a whole lot more human condition with 60 million than building moderate income families 400k apartments.

    In my mind there is absolutely no justification for that if they are not handicapped, very elderly or parentless kids... Not based on "moderate" income.. THERE are far too many "moderate" income families in WNY to justify giving 150 families 400k apartments with maintenance included.

    Build those family 150 habitat homes in buffalo at 70,000 each. That gives you 150 homes X 70,000 = 10,500,000 spent. 60,000,000 - 10,500,000 spent = $49,500,000 left to build more homes... Then you take that money and build $49,500,000 / 70,000 = 707 more homes for "low" income people that truly deserve it.

    YOu can't justify it so you insult me instead by making a comment "You really are selfish, huh?"...

  7. #22
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,948
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    Improving as a whole. Which means suitable housing for everyone. That improves the human condition as a whole.

    You really are selfish, huh?
    What is the title of this thread?

  8. #23
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    What ever....

    400k per apartment per family. Yep I'm selfish enough to say no. You can help a whole lot more human condition with 60 million than building moderate income families 400k apartments.

    In my mind there is absolutely no justification for that if they are not handicapped, very elderly or parentless kids... Not based on "moderate" income.. THERE are far too many "moderate" income families in WNY to justify giving 150 families 400k apartments with maintenance included.

    Build those family 150 habitat homes in buffalo at 70,000 each. That gives you 150 homes X 70,000 = 10,500,000 spent. 60,000,000 - 10,500,000 spent = $49,500,000 left to build more homes... Then you take that money and build $49,500,000 / 70,000 = 707 more homes for "low" income people that truly deserve it.

    YOu can't justify it so you insult me instead by making a comment "You really are selfish, huh?"...
    Where are those houses built at? Therein lies the reason for 400K per house... It's easy to say,"Build them in Buffalo instead". However, poor people can't just up and move.

    And no, stating a fact about you is not insulting you. You've already stated here you don't give a damned about anyone but yourself.
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  9. #24
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    A noble goal. So who gets to be the final arbiter? Does everyone get to live in a $400k apt? If some do, why not everyone? If that is considered suitable, it's suitable for everyone, right? If we all are going to chip in to see that everyone is equal - who decides? The government? Is it ok for everyone to contribute 60/80/90% of their income so that everyone is equal (or has a suitable share)? Is this the goal? The government is already deciding what "rich" is, what other decisions are you willing to have the government decide? How many children you can have? How many pets you can have? Cars?

    Who gets to determine suitable?
    It's actually a bit complicated, but suitable housing is much like the poverty level.

    If someone is living on the street, it's easy to see they are not living in suitable housing. If a family of 10 is living in a two bedroom apartment, again, easy to see they are not in suitable housing.
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  10. #25
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    A noble goal. So who gets to be the final arbiter? Does everyone get to live in a $400k apt? If some do, why not everyone? If that is considered suitable, it's suitable for everyone, right? If we all are going to chip in to see that everyone is equal - who decides? The government? Is it ok for everyone to contribute 60/80/90% of their income so that everyone is equal (or has a suitable share)? Is this the goal? The government is already deciding what "rich" is, what other decisions are you willing to have the government decide? How many children you can have? How many pets you can have? Cars?

    Who gets to determine suitable?
    They already tried that in the Soviet Union. It failed. Miserably. Communism simply does not work.

    There have always been and will always be classes, with workers and the elite. It's just the natural order of things.
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  11. #26
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeefan2009 View Post
    They already tried that in the Soviet Union. It failed. Miserably. Communism simply does not work.

    There have always been and will always be classes, with workers and the elite. It's just the natural order of things.
    That is very true. There will always be a lower, middle, and upper classes. However, a healthy balance is a fat middle class, and tiny lower and upper classes.

    Something that does not exist here. We have a fat upper class, and slim middle, and huge lower class. That's what finally killed the Soviet Union (Which was not really communist, it was a fascist system, calling itself communist), and will kill us as well if we don't fix it.
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  12. #27
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by nbuffaloresident View Post
    that's what finally killed the soviet union (which was not really communist, it was a fascist system, calling itself communist), and will kill us as well if we don't fix it.
    lolwut!!!!??!?!?!
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  13. #28
    Member NBuffaloResident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeefan2009 View Post
    lolwut!!!!??!?!?!
    I'll say it again:

    What killed the Soviet Union was a fat upper class, and slim middle and lower classes. Classic 1984 dystopic situation. The Soviet Union, however, didn't have the power of Thought Police and Minitruth to secure their power.

    Any system struggling to prevent equilibrium will eventually fail. In economics, equilibrium is attained when the majority of people possess the majority of wealth.

    If you look to the Soviet Union, immediately prior to it's collapse, you'll find a very wealthy upper class (Which consisted of a minority of people), and poverty rife among the lower class (Which consisted of the majority of people). There was no middle class there.

    The same will happen here if we "regress" rather than "progress" towards a more balanced situation.
    Raptor Jesus: He went extinct for your sins.

  14. #29
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,948
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    Where are those houses built at? Therein lies the reason for 400K per house... It's easy to say,"Build them in Buffalo instead". However, poor people can't just up and move.

    And no, stating a fact about you is not insulting you. You've already stated here you don't give a damned about anyone but yourself.
    They are built all over the United States. I posted a link in another thread that even show's a manual you can buy on how to build a habitat house. They say the average build out cost is about 70k.

    Why can't people of low income move from one spot in buffalo to another? If low income people can move how will "moderate" income people move into their new tax funded 400k apartments?

    I'm less selfish than you think. I'm just not a tool like some people are.

  15. #30
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    Quote Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident View Post
    So, basically, you think we should NOT work towards the goals of improving the human condition then?

    I think the premise is faulty, and proved as such with one example: Science has eliminated Polio and Small pox. And, given enough time and energy, why could the other items not be eliminated?

    Jobs for everyone would be easy: Science opens new areas of employment, and new resources to exploit. Science and technology can eventually end hunger, given enough time and energy devoted to things like increasing crop yields.
    There you go posting false information yet again!

    Science has NOT eliminated Polio and Small pox.

    Elimination and eradication are NOT the same thing!!

    Smallpox has been eradicated, NOT eliminated:
    Smallpox

    Smallpox was the first disease to be eradicated by human undertakings, and the only human infectious disease to have been eradicated so far. It became the first disease for which there was an effective vaccination.

    Polio has neither been eliminated nor eradicated:
    Poliomyelitis (polio)
























































    A dramatic reduction of the incidence

    of poliomyelitis in industrialized countries followed the development of a vaccine in the 1950s.


    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradica...tious_diseases

    The vaccine stockpile and its regular renewal will require financial investment until the risk of polio outbreaks has been reliably eliminated. Polio will join smallpox as the only infectious diseases to have been eradicated.
    Link: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?s...62004000100002


    **free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The definition of a teabagger
    By FMD in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 1st, 2010, 09:09 PM
  2. When the Libtard media starts hammering you...
    By ILOVEDNY in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2010, 12:16 PM
  3. Libtard Nov. Game plan.
    By ILOVEDNY in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 31st, 2010, 03:31 PM
  4. Clueless libtard
    By ILOVEDNY in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 19th, 2010, 10:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •