I don't think the troll will understand your point that taxing the rich still hurts us all. He wants hope and change he can believe in. Keep it simple.

To accomplish what? How is it a viable alternative, considering that no tax rate on the rich could sustain current spending levels?

"Okay.  No argument there."

You don't realize that what he posted does not answer your question at all?

He made a claim about relative costs of one syringe vs another. That he thinks one "would" be cheaper produced en masse says nothing of its cost relative to the other type of syringe, which was his claim and what you asked about. Furthermore, glass syringes are already produced in large numbers, so presumably larger-scale production would produce little or no savings, seeing as most savings of mass production have already been achieved.

Wishing does not make things so.

I store alien technology in my butt. It's used to produce Cheetos. And plastic syringes. And damn does it produce a lot of energy. Do you like broccoli? I like broccoli. brb my farm is burning. I'll continue this later.

"How many districts do you think each Rep. represents?"

One.

"If each of them said "well shit but MY people don't deserve to suffer"  All any of them do is waste money for their district.  I don't see any damn fool saying "I want to build the worlds biggest museum of buttcrack odors and I want it 1000 miles from my hometown""

But if they all voted against such bills, we'd have progress. He's still better than the rest, any which way you choose to slice it (aka look at it).

"Personally i think they do deserve to suffer"

My point is that the people who elected him, who votes against ALL such bills, do not deserve to suffer MORE than the rest of our society.

"The immediate point was whether RON PAUL should STFU about being righteous about money or stop wasting money.  He's decided to do all the above."

He votes against those bills, even when he includes some money for his district. It's a testament to congress's stupidity that they include such money even when they know he'll vote against it.

My point is that if all of congress did as he did in this matter, we'd all be better off and less in debt. I don't make any argument he's perfect and I love him to death, but the fact that you Mr.s Yell and Einstein pretend he's as bad/worse than the rest of Republicans when he's distinctly different just drive my point home.

I'm not an avid supporter of his. I do not agree with all of his policies. I think he's [truckin] nuts. But he's a hell of a lot better than 99% of RepubliDemoSocialists out there.

"He says he is against Pork Barrel crap, yet he inserts a LOT for his district in bills he knows will pass then votes no to make it look like he is all fine and dandy."

He still votes against them. He chooses not to hurt his own constituency while fighting against the status quo. If the status quo is going to ruin us all, there's no reason he should penalize his constituency while he fights the status quo. They don't deserve the harm when they're being more responsible than [the _vast_ majority of] most other districts. I would have hoped you would appreciate this, but it appears you think Republicans are innocent in the war they and Democrats wage against our own offspring and future generations.

"Ron Paul denies he reads his racist, xenophobic, misbegotten whore of a newprint."

I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he's better than all of the regular rubbish. I'm sure he's full of shit, talking about not knowing what was in his newsletters. Though what he said about the LA riots ending when they all went home to collect their welfare checks... Well, that was largely true.

"You are a deluded fool WORSE than a Liberal if you say vote Ron Paul."

Now you've gone on record saying Republican party-line bullshit.

Worse than a liberal? Spare me. That's rhetorical garbage from Republicans who aren't much better than Liberals. Both skyrocket the nation debt, if at _slightly_ different speeds. Both fight personal freedoms, if in different areas--They work together to erode personal freedoms. When one side's in power, it's on one front. When the other's in power, it's on the other front. Both want a huge corporate-government power structure. Both wage wars for their corporate sponsors. Both support global governance.

That depends on if the voters who elect them are trashy individuals who vote for buttholes.

Ron Paul 2012!

I formally ask that you seek to understand points made in other threads and respond to them before spamming other threads with references to them.

I referenced "greed" and "jealousy" in making a point about the content of your posts. If you're automatically offended at the use of these words, perhaps you're the one making personal attacks.

Al Gore's propaganda piece was ripped apart years ago.

Nobody is going to be prosecuted. For what? Obama pretends 60% of 2% is 60% of the whole. Liars incorrectly site facts all the time. Presumably, if they were ever questioned (which they're not) they'd pretend not to have understood what they were siting. And who would prosecute them? Holder won't prosecute people for publicly offering money for kidnapping. He's hardly going to become the science police.

>>Your objection that glass syringes would be more expensive, for example.  Reusable glass syringes wouldn't be that much more expensive if they were produced in the same number as disposable plastic syringes.<<

Based on what? They're more expensive to make and more expensive to ship. That's real money and a real number less that can be bought with the same amount of limited currency.

>>Secondly, because they could be reused again and again, they prove to be cheaper to the consumer than disposable plastic syringes (if they had actually not reused the one-time use syringes, that is).<<

This presumes that the fuel for heating is _that_ much cheaper than the chemicals for cleansing. This may or may not be true. In any event, that we have to question the actions of the aid organizations giving/administering substances with these syringes is not mitigated by a switch to glass.

I wish there was any simple conclusion to arrive at. It doesn't sound like aid organizations are responsibly disposing of syringes they don't expect to reuse responsibly, and these areas tend to have such weak and impoverished governments that they don't care or have no power/control anyway.

Anarchists are communists... so no. They simply phrase their arguments as if "the people" will naturally do what they, in fact, want a communist government to do. Because they want a government to do things in the name of "the people," they pretend it's not an all-powerful government at all and thus call themselves anarchists.  It's equivocation over semantics: They're communists.

Anyone who just got the urge to tell me I'm wrong should first go educate themselves. It's not really up for discussion. Nobody is so dumb as to think that a state of anarchy could ever persist for more than moments. Maybe a few dumb kids showing up don't think so, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of "anarchists" advocating anything are advocating 100% communist causes.

Social contract theory is epic. Libertarians should rule the world. And if you disagree, you're a fanatic.