Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mexicoman    

Rank #5245 on Content
mexicoman Avatar Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to mexicoman Block mexicoman Invite mexicoman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:12/11/2010
Last Login:7/23/2014
Location:Washington
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5245
Comment Ranking:#19594
Highest Content Rank:#4879
Highest Comment Rank:#8067
Content Thumbs: 1448 total,  1809 ,  361
Comment Thumbs: 1374 total,  1914 ,  540
Content Level Progress: 97% (97/100)
Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 42% (42/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:110649
Times Content Favorited:94 times
Total Comments Made:658
FJ Points:2881
Favorite Tags: the (8) | game (5) | for (3) | You (3) | a (2) | are (2) | in (2) | kill (2) | Lost (2) | omegle (2) | on (2) | tags (2) | this (2) | to (2) | your (2)

latest user's comments

#4 - I can't help but feel like this picture is depicting OP, and h…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/28/2012 on Careful having kids... +4
User avatar #5 - CXJokerXD (12/28/2012) [-]
My standards aren't in the demand of models and big tittied blondes, but I hate girls like this who stick their mouth out and their middle fingers up in pictures like it's cool or sassy. She seems like every other stupid bitch who thinks the world of themselves and that everyone should be attracted to them even when they're fugly.
User avatar #15 - myrtille (12/29/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure that's the point. Her demeanor is unsatisfying, but I do think she's actually pretty nice looking.
#1 - Picture 12/20/2012 on so true... 0
#168 - Why is testosterone a thing you want high levels of? …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/20/2012 on I can't put my finger on it +2
#180 - marcury (12/20/2012) [-]
#166 - With a wife like that, I'd say he is not a man capable of much…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/20/2012 on I can't put my finger on it +4
#182 - wagastragas (12/21/2012) [-]
with as much he masturbates, i would say his wifes gets tired long before him
#175 - gazajunk (12/20/2012) [-]
**gazajunk rolled a random image posted in comment #122989 at Ponyville ** oh snap!
#54 - Comment deleted 12/17/2012 on office revolt +8
#94 - >Mfw >This shit never gets old 12/17/2012 on Alpha +4
#146 - Eating Ramen noodles... with a spoon?  [+] (3 new replies) 12/16/2012 on Where´s my phone.. +18
#148 - icedcarbon (12/16/2012) [-]
I FUCKING EAT IT WITH A SPOON YOU GOT A PROBLEM!?
User avatar #171 - appelsiini (12/16/2012) [-]
IMBOSSIBRU! :O
#154 - fuperbooper (12/16/2012) [-]






Yes.
#482 - Hourglass figure for the victory! 12/16/2012 on Female Body Types -2
#15690 - Racist response is racist.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/15/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15696 - anonymous (12/15/2012) [-]
Racist, but true.
#69 - Am I the only one who thinks the left side is the obvious best choice? 12/14/2012 on Life choice +5
#15634 - Well I am saying that it is not different in its application a… 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15632 - Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that. … 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#42 - No, not that. You might be 21 and able to use it, but it is re…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/14/2012 on Pot is legalized +2
User avatar #69 - merlinboy (12/14/2012) [-]
Alright thanks, I was wondering how it all worked.
#41 - Yeah, but people within the state don't need to worry about it… 12/14/2012 on Pot is legalized +4
#15630 - There is a certain venom that is appropriate to have when talk… 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +2
#15629 - Yeah I did, it is on my shelf right next to my gift. 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15628 - There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that… 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15626 - Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The disc… 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15624 - "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor…  [+] (9 new replies) 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15622 - Okay, but I am not arguing with you about This. I redirect you…  [+] (11 new replies) 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15623 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
So what are you even arguing then? That you have an opinion? Cool story then I guess.
User avatar #15624 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
"I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.".

Just because you seem to refuse reading and understanding my argument, again I say read my actual comments.
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15618 - Are you saying that they clearly are not functions of the gove… 12/14/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15615 - When I think of socialism, I think of the people pooling toget…  [+] (13 new replies) 12/13/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15619 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
In Capitalism wealth is spread to those who deserve it. In socialism you get a misallocation of resources and a lazy population that feels entitled to just about everything. When I say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on those that aren't contributing a damn thing to the collective" I mean exactly that. And subject matter matters. There's a difference between duty and right, and need and want. If you want something, its your duty to work for it. Otherwise nobody gets that thing you want, because nobody's making it. Unless you force them to make it, but that's slavery.
User avatar #15622 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Okay, but I am not arguing with you about This. I redirect you to my previous post with the lesbians.
User avatar #15623 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
So what are you even arguing then? That you have an opinion? Cool story then I guess.
User avatar #15624 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
"I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.".

Just because you seem to refuse reading and understanding my argument, again I say read my actual comments.
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15613 - No, that is not what this is. You are arguing against welfare,…  [+] (15 new replies) 12/13/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15614 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of Socialism, I think of large government involvement. The in-between of Capitalism and Communism. When I think of small government involvement, like defense and law enforcement, I think of Minarchism, not Socialism.

Socialist and Socialism are two different things.
#15615 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of socialism, I think of the people pooling together resources for the sake of providing for the necessities or more broadly to provide for things that the public wants money spent on. Those 'necessary government function' lines you like to draw are socialist, the type of governance that can be described as is socialism. When you say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.". One of those statements would mike a 'Minarchist' look like a dickhead, because they are changing the fundamentals of acceptable governance based on the subject matter.

GIF is unrelated
User avatar #15619 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
In Capitalism wealth is spread to those who deserve it. In socialism you get a misallocation of resources and a lazy population that feels entitled to just about everything. When I say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on those that aren't contributing a damn thing to the collective" I mean exactly that. And subject matter matters. There's a difference between duty and right, and need and want. If you want something, its your duty to work for it. Otherwise nobody gets that thing you want, because nobody's making it. Unless you force them to make it, but that's slavery.
User avatar #15622 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Okay, but I am not arguing with you about This. I redirect you to my previous post with the lesbians.
User avatar #15623 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
So what are you even arguing then? That you have an opinion? Cool story then I guess.
User avatar #15624 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
"I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.".

Just because you seem to refuse reading and understanding my argument, again I say read my actual comments.
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15610 - Im not having that fucking argument with you about the legitim…  [+] (18 new replies) 12/13/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15612 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
And its not that I'm not open minded to social programs like defense and such, because those things are necessary. Things like Welfare, Healthcare, Keynesianism, aren't necessary, and hurt more than they help.
User avatar #15611 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
But that's what this is! I'm trying to argue against the facets OF socialism. Social Welfare is one of those things. I'm trying to explain why I don't like Socialism, because simply saying that I feel that it hampers productivity, lowers the average standard of living, creates class warfare, promotes corporate buy-ins to government, promotes powerful government, and all in all hurts everybody in the end, isn't enough for you apparently.
User avatar #15613 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
No, that is not what this is. You are arguing against welfare, a program that is socialist. I am saying that attacking this program for being socialist makes you a dick, if you also happen to approve of military spending and public roads. If you attack this program for other legitimate reasons pertaining to its economic effect and moral inconsistencies, then that is not the same thing.
User avatar #15614 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of Socialism, I think of large government involvement. The in-between of Capitalism and Communism. When I think of small government involvement, like defense and law enforcement, I think of Minarchism, not Socialism.

Socialist and Socialism are two different things.
#15615 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of socialism, I think of the people pooling together resources for the sake of providing for the necessities or more broadly to provide for things that the public wants money spent on. Those 'necessary government function' lines you like to draw are socialist, the type of governance that can be described as is socialism. When you say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.". One of those statements would mike a 'Minarchist' look like a dickhead, because they are changing the fundamentals of acceptable governance based on the subject matter.

GIF is unrelated
User avatar #15619 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
In Capitalism wealth is spread to those who deserve it. In socialism you get a misallocation of resources and a lazy population that feels entitled to just about everything. When I say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on those that aren't contributing a damn thing to the collective" I mean exactly that. And subject matter matters. There's a difference between duty and right, and need and want. If you want something, its your duty to work for it. Otherwise nobody gets that thing you want, because nobody's making it. Unless you force them to make it, but that's slavery.
User avatar #15622 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Okay, but I am not arguing with you about This. I redirect you to my previous post with the lesbians.
User avatar #15623 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
So what are you even arguing then? That you have an opinion? Cool story then I guess.
User avatar #15624 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
"I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.".

Just because you seem to refuse reading and understanding my argument, again I say read my actual comments.
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15595 - Picture 12/13/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #3 - soundofwinter (06/27/2014) [-]
fuck you
User avatar #2 - sirbonzaiatak (03/25/2011) [-]
LMAO at your post!!! Check out mine and thumb please :)

http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1869232/Weekly+Funny+1/
User avatar #1 - iMJesus (03/11/2011) [-]
Lmfao at your post bro, thumbed up, can you thumb this up for me?
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1796542/Epic+Breakup/
 Friends (0)