This.
Based on my quote:
"The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious."
Pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim I said.
Someone else recently commented that you have pre-programmed retorts and don't even pay attention to what you read.
I'm not sure if it's lack of attention, or of comprehension.
Either way.
tailgater wrote:
Hah. Oh I pay attention. And I comprehend your sentences. Maybe you don't? Let's look at it again:
Everyone wants free stuff. The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious.
It's now socially acceptable to mortgage our children's future in the name of propping up big government.
Free stuff.
Restrictive regulations on unfounded problems.
We'll spend hundreds of billions, perhaps more, on climate change with no possible means to measure the impact our dollars will or won't have.
Lost in all the hoopla surrounding "man made climate change" is the severity of our influence. If we have control over 1% of climate change and we somehow completely eliminate our influence, then there is still 99% change that's going to occur. Instead of preparing to adapt to a possible change, we're going to go broke in futile pursuit of Don Quixote's windmills.
someone who totally hates everyone who wants to spend government money, not just the "socialists" wrote:
So... while yes... you said "by no means original.... just the most obvious"... your "others" you then rant against include:
"big government" (usually something people whining about "socialists" also lump in)
"free stuff" (that's definitely something people whining about "socialists" like to harp about)
"restrictive regulations" (ok... not technically socialist, but has been lumped in with the "green new deal" as the evil du jour)
"climate change" (see above)
While I will say right now, I shouldn't have specifically said you were harping on "socialists" I should have said "liberals" or something else similar. But... my point stands. Nowhere in your rant did you actually harp on anything that doesn't fit neatly into your "I hate the libs because they're the ones who want to spend all the free money that they don't make or pay taxes ever on" mentality. But, as I pointed out, the ENTIRETY of our "discretionary budget" is our deficit. How much of our discretionary budget do you think actually applies to any of the crap you whined about above?
So, yeah... you threw a "no means original" in there. But nowhere did you complain about military spending. Nowhere did you mention Homeland Security.... the VA... Trump's "wall" request (which exceeds the entirety of our HUD and Health expenditures) ... basically, you ignored ALL the big ticket items, to complain about stuff that's barely a blip on existing budgets. How much do you think is actually spent by the government on climate change? How much do you think is actually spent on "restrictive regulations"? and how much do you think is spent on "free stuff"?
What percentage of our $1 Trillion (give or take) discretionary budget is the stuff you chose to specifically list in your whining?
To go back to my original analogy:
whining about the socialists, who are not original in their intent but are the most obvious while also highlighting only liberal causes which are minor parts of the discretionary budget is the equivalent to you pointing out the "wafer thin mint" and 2 pats of butter Drafter ate are "the most obvious" problems. Sure... he probably can't afford to eat it. But it was likely the 10 course meal ahead of that which really was the problem, which you still ignored.
