Meet the man behind the fake seal

[Half-Life]

And yet TPUSA hires a lot of them, like that high school kid you were outraged about. Amazing how ToiletPaperUSA is the only organization that has trouble in not hiring racists

Secondly, who cares who donates to them? George Soros funds everything for the left and you don't see lefties screaming about the evil of Soros.

So if you want to know why people like Angry Floof know the right can't win on honesty, it's because of bullshit like this that you post. First off - it does matter who does the funding. If it's from a pair of brothers whose net worth is seven times that of evil George Soros, it's hardly a grass roots organization. Tuning Point USA is dishonest about its methods, its funding, its goals and the type of people it attracts. I can see why you find it appealing. I bet your a fan of Project Veritas as well (an ironic name if ever there was one).
Secondly, Soros is a nobody. Not a single leftist I know takes money from him He's the Keyser Söze of the right, mainly because the right has never matured past believing in bogey men.

Boogeymen? You seem to think the Koch brothers are your boogeymen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's an astroturf organisation funded by the Koch brothers that has an unfortunate history of consistently hiring racists. Half-life loves them.

And then they FIRE THEM when they find out they are racists!

No, they fire people when the press finds out sbout their racism.
There is a discrete difference.

 

[bilby]

And yet TPUSA hires a lot of them, like that high school kid you were outraged about. Amazing how ToiletPaperUSA is the only organization that has trouble in not hiring racists

Secondly, who cares who donates to them? George Soros funds everything for the left and you don't see lefties screaming about the evil of Soros.

So if you want to know why people like Angry Floof know the right can't win on honesty, it's because of bullshit like this that you post. First off - it does matter who does the funding. If it's from a pair of brothers whose net worth is seven times that of evil George Soros, it's hardly a grass roots organization. Tuning Point USA is dishonest about its methods, its funding, its goals and the type of people it attracts. I can see why you find it appealing. I bet your a fan of Project Veritas as well (an ironic name if ever there was one).
Secondly, Soros is a nobody. Not a single leftist I know takes money from him He's the Keyser Söze of the right, mainly because the right has never matured past believing in bogey men.

Frauds and cheats often have difficulty believing that not everyone is a fraud and a cheat. They rend to assume that if their opponents don't get caught cheating, it's because they are more discreet and stealthy than they are.

You see this a lot with Trump - he accuses his opponents constantly of doing the very same nefarious things that he is up to - because he genuinely doesn't believe that they could have got where they are honestly, or by obeying the rules. After all, he couldn't have.

This is why Tu Quoque is their 'go to' form of argument. They know how bad thay themselves are, and lack the imagination to grasp that others may actually succeed through hard work, or competence.

 

[Half-Life]

Turning Point USA is actually responsible for getting the conservative message out there to younger people.

That's pretty unnecessary. All the younger people I know already got the conservative message loud and clear. It's "Fuck you, we've got ours".

How is that the conservative message? The conservative message is getting people to be more independent and less dependent on the government teet. What do the leftists want? GOVERNMENT CONTROL of healthcare. GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED handouts to poor families. It's been proven time and time again that if you give people handouts, they have no incentive to work. If you want to work a minum wage your whole life, that's fine, you can do that. But, then don't go complaining about how it's so tough to make it in this world. Yes, it is tough on minimum wage. Those jobs were never meant to be CAREERS, but many lazy people want to work some teenage job and demand more money. That's not how the market works. A McDonald's worker is easily replaceable by any human being, this is why they are paid less. The jobs that require skill are harder to find people for, so they are paid more. This isn't rocket science. This is how life is.

Many of you might be saying, "But what would Jesus want? Wouldn't he want the rich to give to the poor?" The answer is yes, of course He does. But, Jesus din't advocate stealing from them. Jesus advocated the rich giving to charity out of their own choice, not by being forced by the government to empty their pockets. Do you see the difference? To this day, Republicans are larger donaters to charity than Democrats are. Yet, it's the leftists who lecture us morality and helping the poor when they give less to charity. Who is really following Jesus' message? Republicans.

Bill Gates giving 80 billion to charity out of his own choice = good.
Bill Gates being forced by the government to empty his pockets for the poor = bad.

 

[Angry Floof]

If I have to choose between handouts for billionaires and corporations or handouts for poor people, I'll err on the side of the most vulnerable among us and not the most powerful and secure.

 

[bilby]

Turning Point USA is actually responsible for getting the conservative message out there to younger people.

That's pretty unnecessary. All the younger people I know already got the conservative message loud and clear. It's "Fuck you, we've got ours".

How is that the conservative message?

How is it NOT?

The conservative message is getting people to be more independent and less dependent on the government teet.

Or, to rephrase: "Fuck you, we've got ours". (And the word is 'teat').

What do the leftists want? GOVERNMENT CONTROL of healthcare. GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED handouts to poor families.

The government is the people. It's not some evil and inhuman entity; It's just the people. Giving the people (rather than just the rich people) a say in what happens is what government is for. That the rich people have hijacked it in the US is a great shame; but it's still better than just letting people drown.

It's been proven time and time again that if you give people handouts, they have no incentive to work.

No, it hasn't. It has been assumed, claimed, believed, and even asserted. But this hasn't ever been proved.

If you want to work a minum wage your whole life, that's fine, you can do that. But, then don't go complaining about how it's so tough to make it in this world. Yes, it is tough on minimum wage. Those jobs were never meant to be CAREERS, but many lazy people want to work some teenage job and demand more money. That's not how the market works. A McDonald's worker is easily replaceable by any human being, this is why they are paid less. The jobs that require skill are harder to find people for, so they are paid more. This isn't rocket science. This is how life is.

In the USA. With its choice of two political parties - conservative and ultra-conservative.

This is not how life is in the civilised world.

Many of you might be saying, "But what would Jesus want? Wouldn't he want the rich to give to the poor?" The answer is yes, of course He does. But, Jesus din't advocate stealing from them. Jesus advocated the rich giving to charity out of their own choice, not by being forced by the government to empty their pockets. Do you see the difference? To this day, Republicans are larger donaters to charity than Democrats are. Yet, it's the leftists who lecture us morality and helping the poor when they give less to charity. Who is really following Jesus' message? Republicans.

Are you unaware that this is an atheist discussion board? MOST of the people here wouldn't dream of giving two shits what Jesus, or Mohammed, or Thor, or the Angel Moroni would want.

Bill Gates giving 80 billion to charity out of his own choice = good.
Bill Gates being forced by the government to empty his pockets for the poor = bad.

Nobody's being forced to empty their pockets. Leaving poor Bill with "only" twice as much money as he could possibly spend in a lifetime, rather than a thousand times as much, doesn't seem unreasonable, when millions of lives would be improved by doing so - and Bill still gets his yacht and Lear jet.

Your false dichotomy doesn't fly.

 

[Half-Life]

If I have to choose between handouts for billionaires and corporations or handouts for poor people, I'll err on the side of the most vulnerable among us and not the most powerful and secure.

Who provides the jobs for the "poor people?" The rich ones who own the companies. Make them pay more in taxes, they slash hours and employees. That would kill the economy. This is why I like the flat tax. You make $10, you pay $1. You make 10 billion, you pay 1 billion.

Making the rich pay more in taxes is saying, "we're punishing you for being successful." Is that the land of the free? Punishing success?

 

[Half-Life]

How is that the conservative message?

How is it NOT?

The conservative message is getting people to be more independent and less dependent on the government teet.

Or, to rephrase: "Fuck you, we've got ours". (And the word is 'teat').

What do the leftists want? GOVERNMENT CONTROL of healthcare. GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED handouts to poor families.

The government is the people. It's not some evil and inhuman entity; It's just the people. Giving the people (rather than just the rich people) a say in what happens is what government is for. That the rich people have hijacked it in the US is a great shame; but it's still better than just letting people drown.

View attachment 22790

It's been proven time and time again that if you give people handouts, they have no incentive to work.

No, it hasn't. It has been assumed, claimed, believed, and even asserted. But this hasn't ever been proved.

If you want to work a minum wage your whole life, that's fine, you can do that. But, then don't go complaining about how it's so tough to make it in this world. Yes, it is tough on minimum wage. Those jobs were never meant to be CAREERS, but many lazy people want to work some teenage job and demand more money. That's not how the market works. A McDonald's worker is easily replaceable by any human being, this is why they are paid less. The jobs that require skill are harder to find people for, so they are paid more. This isn't rocket science. This is how life is.

In the USA. With its choice of two political parties - conservative and ultra-conservative.

This is not how life is in the civilised world.

Many of you might be saying, "But what would Jesus want? Wouldn't he want the rich to give to the poor?" The answer is yes, of course He does. But, Jesus din't advocate stealing from them. Jesus advocated the rich giving to charity out of their own choice, not by being forced by the government to empty their pockets. Do you see the difference? To this day, Republicans are larger donaters to charity than Democrats are. Yet, it's the leftists who lecture us morality and helping the poor when they give less to charity. Who is really following Jesus' message? Republicans.

Are you unaware that this is an atheist discussion board? MOST of the people here wouldn't dream of giving two shits what Jesus, or Mohammed, or Thor, or the Angel Moroni would want.

Bill Gates giving 80 billion to charity out of his own choice = good.
Bill Gates being forced by the government to empty his pockets for the poor = bad.

Nobody's being forced to empty their pockets. Leaving poor Bill with "only" twice as much money as he could possibly spend in a lifetime, rather than a thousand times as much, doesn't seem unreasonable, when millions of lives would be improved by doing so - and Bill still gets his yacht and Lear jet.

Your false dichotomy doesn't fly.

You guys always have trouble seeing the bigger picture. What if Bill Gates wants to use his wealth so his kids, grandkids, great grandkids, great great grandkids, etc etc have a comfortable life? Why should he be forced to give it up?

Jefff Bezos has 140 billion. More money than he could spend in a lifetime, but if he wants to hand it down to his descendents, why is that a bad thing? It's his money and his family. If a person was making 50K a year and left their children 30 grand, you guys would applaud it. So, the same logic applies no matter how much money you make.

 

[bilby]

If I have to choose between handouts for billionaires and corporations or handouts for poor people, I'll err on the side of the most vulnerable among us and not the most powerful and secure.

Who provides the jobs for the "poor people?" The rich ones who own the companies. Make them pay more in taxes, they slash hours and employees. That would kill the economy. This is why I like the flat tax. You make $10, you pay $1. You make 10 billion, you pay 1 billion.

Making the rich pay more in taxes is saying, "we're punishing you for being successful." Is that the land of the free? Punishing success?

You do knkw that a job isn't a gift from a beneficent employer to an ungrateful employee, bit rather a deal where each gives something that the other values, right?

The boss pays you, not because he's feeling charitable, but because you do stuff for him that is worth more than he pays for it.

Jobs are as much a gift from the workers to the bosses as they are a gift from the bosses to the workers.

The important difference being that labour is a buyer's market - it's a lot easier to discard and replace a worker than it is to discard and replace your job.

Nevermind "who provides the jobs for the poor people?"; Who provided the work by which the rich people got to be rich?

 

[Half-Life]

If I have to choose between handouts for billionaires and corporations or handouts for poor people, I'll err on the side of the most vulnerable among us and not the most powerful and secure.

Who provides the jobs for the "poor people?" The rich ones who own the companies. Make them pay more in taxes, they slash hours and employees. That would kill the economy. This is why I like the flat tax. You make $10, you pay $1. You make 10 billion, you pay 1 billion.

Making the rich pay more in taxes is saying, "we're punishing you for being successful." Is that the land of the free? Punishing success?

You do knkw that a job isn't a gift from a beneficent employer to an ungrateful employee, bit rather a deal where each gives something that the other values, right?

The boss pays you, not because he's feeling charitable, but because you do stuff for him that is worth more than he pays for it.

Jobs are as much a gift from the workers to the bosses as they are a gift from the bosses to the workers.

The important difference being that labour is a buyer's market - it's a lot easier to discard and replace a worker than it is to discard and replace your job.

Nevermind "who provides the jobs for the poor people?"; Who provided the work by which the rich people got to be rich?

That's the point! They are paid low wages because anybody is qualified to do their jobs. If being a doctor was as easy as being a McDonald's worker, doctors would get paid minimum wage too.

You can't say, "You pay me low wages and I want more!" That is showing you don't understand economics and how things work. Someone who says, "I wont work unless you pay me $15 an hour!" will just get fired and another person will come in willing to do the job for 7.50 an hour. That's how it is with low skill jobs. THEY WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE A CAREER! Why can't people get this?!?! A teenager thinks he's on top of the world when he gets a $150 paycheck from McDonald's because he's living with mom and dad and his check is used on stuff he wants to buy. That's what the job is meant for. Young kids. Not adults.

 

[bilby]

How is it NOT?

Or, to rephrase: "Fuck you, we've got ours". (And the word is 'teat').

What do the leftists want? GOVERNMENT CONTROL of healthcare. GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED handouts to poor families.

The government is the people. It's not some evil and inhuman entity; It's just the people. Giving the people (rather than just the rich people) a say in what happens is what government is for. That the rich people have hijacked it in the US is a great shame; but it's still better than just letting people drown.

View attachment 22790

It's been proven time and time again that if you give people handouts, they have no incentive to work.

No, it hasn't. It has been assumed, claimed, believed, and even asserted. But this hasn't ever been proved.

If you want to work a minum wage your whole life, that's fine, you can do that. But, then don't go complaining about how it's so tough to make it in this world. Yes, it is tough on minimum wage. Those jobs were never meant to be CAREERS, but many lazy people want to work some teenage job and demand more money. That's not how the market works. A McDonald's worker is easily replaceable by any human being, this is why they are paid less. The jobs that require skill are harder to find people for, so they are paid more. This isn't rocket science. This is how life is.

In the USA. With its choice of two political parties - conservative and ultra-conservative.

This is not how life is in the civilised world.

Many of you might be saying, "But what would Jesus want? Wouldn't he want the rich to give to the poor?" The answer is yes, of course He does. But, Jesus din't advocate stealing from them. Jesus advocated the rich giving to charity out of their own choice, not by being forced by the government to empty their pockets. Do you see the difference? To this day, Republicans are larger donaters to charity than Democrats are. Yet, it's the leftists who lecture us morality and helping the poor when they give less to charity. Who is really following Jesus' message? Republicans.

Are you unaware that this is an atheist discussion board? MOST of the people here wouldn't dream of giving two shits what Jesus, or Mohammed, or Thor, or the Angel Moroni would want.

Bill Gates giving 80 billion to charity out of his own choice = good.
Bill Gates being forced by the government to empty his pockets for the poor = bad.

Nobody's being forced to empty their pockets. Leaving poor Bill with "only" twice as much money as he could possibly spend in a lifetime, rather than a thousand times as much, doesn't seem unreasonable, when millions of lives would be improved by doing so - and Bill still gets his yacht and Lear jet.

Your false dichotomy doesn't fly.

You guys always have trouble seeing the bigger picture. What if Bill Gates wants to use his wealth so his kids, grandkids, great grandkids, great great grandkids, etc etc have a comfortable life? Why should he be forced to give it up?

Really? You think one individual's desires constitutes "the bigger picture"?

Jefff Bezos has 140 billion. More money than he could spend in a lifetime, but if he wants to hand it down to his descendents, why is that a bad thing?

Because I have it on good authority that giving people handouts is a bad thing. They need to be more independent, and less dependent on the ancestral teat.

While we are in the business of having people get something for nothing, I would rather that those people were the people who most need something. Rather than just the winners of the ancestral lottery.

It's his money and his family.

It's neither. The money is created by, and the property of, the nation. And nobody's allowed to own human beings. They are their own individuals, and not his to do with as he wishes.

If a person was making 50K a year and left their children 30 grand, you guys would applaud it.

I wouldn't.

You should really, seriously, stop trying to tell us what we would do, and start asking instead. You would be less likely to embarrass yourself.

So, the same logic applies no matter how much money you make.

I don't agree with the "logic"; Nor with the principle that if an outcome is good for a small event, it will be good for a larger instance of the same event.

If stepping down five inches is comfortable, then a staircase with five inch risers is perfectly safe. By the same "logic", a staircase with fifty foot drops between steps is also safe.

You really aren't very good at this whole logic and reason thing - you should probably learn how they work before trying to employ them.

 

[Elixir]

I like the flat tax. You make $10, you pay $1. You make 10 billion, you pay 1 billion.

I like that too. As long as it comes with no deductions, loopholes, offshoring of assets etc.
Y'know who doesn't like that idea? The top .001% earners who control the legislatures.
Why should they like it, when the current system allows them to manufacture hundreds of millions or billions in paper losses to reduce their tax exposure to zilch, and a lot of those "losses" are the expenses of the lifestyles of the obscenely rich.

 

[bilby]

You do knkw that a job isn't a gift from a beneficent employer to an ungrateful employee, bit rather a deal where each gives something that the other values, right?

The boss pays you, not because he's feeling charitable, but because you do stuff for him that is worth more than he pays for it.

Jobs are as much a gift from the workers to the bosses as they are a gift from the bosses to the workers.

The important difference being that labour is a buyer's market - it's a lot easier to discard and replace a worker than it is to discard and replace your job.

Nevermind "who provides the jobs for the poor people?"; Who provided the work by which the rich people got to be rich?

That's the point! They are paid low wages because anybody is qualified to do their jobs. If being a doctor was as easy as being a McDonald's worker, doctors would get paid minimum wage too.

You can't say, "You pay me low wages and I want more!" That is showing you don't understand economics and how things work. Someone who says, "I wont work unless you pay me $15 an hour!" will just get fired and another person will come in willing to do the job for 7.50 an hour. That's how it is with low skill jobs. THEY WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE A CAREER! Why can't people get this?!?! A teenager thinks he's on top of the world when he gets a $150 paycheck from McDonald's because he's living with mom and dad and his check is used on stuff he wants to buy. That's what the job is meant for. Young kids. Not adults.

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

 

[Half-Life]

You do knkw that a job isn't a gift from a beneficent employer to an ungrateful employee, bit rather a deal where each gives something that the other values, right?

The boss pays you, not because he's feeling charitable, but because you do stuff for him that is worth more than he pays for it.

Jobs are as much a gift from the workers to the bosses as they are a gift from the bosses to the workers.

The important difference being that labour is a buyer's market - it's a lot easier to discard and replace a worker than it is to discard and replace your job.

Nevermind "who provides the jobs for the poor people?"; Who provided the work by which the rich people got to be rich?

That's the point! They are paid low wages because anybody is qualified to do their jobs. If being a doctor was as easy as being a McDonald's worker, doctors would get paid minimum wage too.

You can't say, "You pay me low wages and I want more!" That is showing you don't understand economics and how things work. Someone who says, "I wont work unless you pay me $15 an hour!" will just get fired and another person will come in willing to do the job for 7.50 an hour. That's how it is with low skill jobs. THEY WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE A CAREER! Why can't people get this?!?! A teenager thinks he's on top of the world when he gets a $150 paycheck from McDonald's because he's living with mom and dad and his check is used on stuff he wants to buy. That's what the job is meant for. Young kids. Not adults.

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

Like I said, if that were true, Republicans would account for 0% of all charity donations. But since they are the higher donators than Democrats, I guess it's the Democrats who believe "fuck you, we've got ours."

Why do Republicans donate to charities if they already got theirs?

And please understand that poor people have more kids. If poor people had less kids, poverty wouldn't be a problem. You would think rich people would breed like rabbits since they can afford it. But, poor people breed like rabbits and then complain they can't feed their kids on minimum wage. Can't you see the blatant stupidity with that? That would be the equivalent of me purposely breaking my arm and then complaining no doctors will take me for surgery today.

 

[Ford]

You do knkw that a job isn't a gift from a beneficent employer to an ungrateful employee, bit rather a deal where each gives something that the other values, right?

The boss pays you, not because he's feeling charitable, but because you do stuff for him that is worth more than he pays for it.

Jobs are as much a gift from the workers to the bosses as they are a gift from the bosses to the workers.

The important difference being that labour is a buyer's market - it's a lot easier to discard and replace a worker than it is to discard and replace your job.

Nevermind "who provides the jobs for the poor people?"; Who provided the work by which the rich people got to be rich?

That's the point! They are paid low wages because anybody is qualified to do their jobs. If being a doctor was as easy as being a McDonald's worker, doctors would get paid minimum wage too.

You can't say, "You pay me low wages and I want more!" That is showing you don't understand economics and how things work. Someone who says, "I wont work unless you pay me $15 an hour!" will just get fired and another person will come in willing to do the job for 7.50 an hour. That's how it is with low skill jobs. THEY WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE A CAREER! Why can't people get this?!?! A teenager thinks he's on top of the world when he gets a $150 paycheck from McDonald's because he's living with mom and dad and his check is used on stuff he wants to buy. That's what the job is meant for. Young kids. Not adults.

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Half-Life has never worked at a McDonald's.

 

[bilby]

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

Like I said, if that were true, Republicans would account for 0% of all charity donations. But since they are the higher donators than Democrats, I guess it's the Democrats who believe "fuck you, we've got ours."

Why do Republicans donate to charities if they already got theirs?

And please understand that poor people have more kids. If poor people had less kids, poverty wouldn't be a problem. You would think rich people would breed like rabbits since they can afford it. But, poor people breed like rabbits and then complain they can't feed their kids on minimum wage. Can't you see the blatant stupidity with that? That would be the equivalent of me purposely breaking my arm and then complaining no doctors will take me for surgery today.

Oh jesus fuck, you really believe all this shit, don't you?

Fuck it, I don't have the time or the energy to refute any more new nonsense. So as you can't or won't stick to one subject, and as we have already moved far, far, far away from the topic of the Presidential Seal, I shall just leave you this:

No, Half-Life, you are completely mistaken. Your axioms are false, your reasoning is fallacious, and your conclusions are absurd.

Rather than wasting my time with you any further, please just refer to the bold text (above), each time you post.

Thank you.

 

[Half-Life]

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

Like I said, if that were true, Republicans would account for 0% of all charity donations. But since they are the higher donators than Democrats, I guess it's the Democrats who believe "fuck you, we've got ours."

Why do Republicans donate to charities if they already got theirs?

And please understand that poor people have more kids. If poor people had less kids, poverty wouldn't be a problem. You would think rich people would breed like rabbits since they can afford it. But, poor people breed like rabbits and then complain they can't feed their kids on minimum wage. Can't you see the blatant stupidity with that? That would be the equivalent of me purposely breaking my arm and then complaining no doctors will take me for surgery today.

Oh jesus fuck, you really believe all this shit, don't you?

Fuck it, I don't have the time or the energy to refute any more new nonsense. So as you can't or won't stick to one subject, and as we have already moved far, far, far away from the topic of the Presidential Seal, I shall just leave you this:

No, Half-Life, you are completely mistaken. Your axioms are false, your reasoning is fallacious, and your conclusions are absurd.

Rather than wasting my time with you any further, please just refer to the bold text (above), each time you post.

Thank you.

I am sorry if you feel that way. But, the facts do show that poor people have more kids than rich people. It should logically be the opposite, but it's not. This is what's causing a problem.

 

[Half-Life]

So, to paraphrase, "Fuck you, we've got ours".

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Half-Life has never worked at a McDonald's.

I have worked in fast food at Wendy's when I was younger. But, I understood that it's not meant to be a career. There are some "mentally slow" people that work those jobs and that is fine. At least they are working. But, normal human beings with no mental problems should not be working as a cashier at age 40. At that point, you should've done something with your life and tried harder.

There's a reason people say, "If you don't get an education with a special skill set, you're gonna be asking ' you want fries with that?" for the rest of your life.

 

[bilby]

I am sorry if you feel that way. But, the facts do show that poor people have more kids than rich people. It should logically be the opposite, but it's not. This is what's causing a problem.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

 

[Half-Life]

I am sorry if you feel that way. But, the facts do show that poor people have more kids than rich people. It should logically be the opposite, but it's not. This is what's causing a problem.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

So you are denying this well-known fact? I'm not understanding.