Bushes are buying half a million $ worth of dinner plates

[Fatty McFat]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11432032&ch=4226714&src=news

I do love eating, but half a million seems like a bit much. And they don't even get to use them!

 

[RCA]

Did we pay for those?

 

[satchelmcqueen]

well, at least they still have money. flaunting their absurd spending during these times shows you just how in touch they are. i hope the plates break and cuts their throats.

 

[anaconda]

Michelle Obama should donate the plates to some Iraqi or Palestinian family.

 

[Jeremy]

Michelle Obama should donate the plates to some Iraqi or Palestinian family.

like that would ever happen

 

[pacelli]

Can you say, hyper inflation, boys & girls?

 

[Jeremy]

Can you say, hyper inflation, boys & girls?

it's not payed by government apparently

 

[socialize_me]

Who cares??? Seriously...for a bunch of non-interventionists, you all sure like to stick your nose in the gossip circles of bullshit that doesn't matter.

But how can I expect anything any different?? Humans are all a bunch of hypocrites. Jefferson was a great example of this...bitching about how bad slavery was yet he had no problem owning and boning his. This is easily excused as "Well, he was always in debt so he couldn't free them". The list of hypocrites goes on...

Thank you for contributing.

 

[Jeremy]

Who cares??? Seriously...for a bunch of non-interventionists, you all sure like to stick your nose in the gossip circles of bullshit that doesn't matter.

But how can I expect anything any different?? Humans are all a bunch of hypocrites. Jefferson was a great example of this...bitching about how bad slavery was yet he had no problem owning and boning his. This is easily excused as "Well, he was always in debt so he couldn't free them". The list of hypocrites goes on...

Thank you for contributing.

you are a collectivist and a hater

 

[orafi]

Michelle Obama should donate the plates to some Iraqi or Palestinian family.

She's going to wear them on her ears.

 

[Mini-Me]

Who cares??? Seriously...for a bunch of non-interventionists, you all sure like to stick your nose in the gossip circles of bullshit that doesn't matter.

But how can I expect anything any different?? Humans are all a bunch of hypocrites. Jefferson was a great example of this...bitching about how bad slavery was yet he had no problem owning and boning his. This is easily excused as "Well, he was always in debt so he couldn't free them". The list of hypocrites goes on...

Thank you for contributing.

Expressing a verbal opinion on something is a whole hell of a lot different from interventionism. Going by your own logic, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, you'd be a hypocrite yourself for criticizing everyone else for their opinions (just like we're supposedly "hypocrites" for merely commenting on the Bushes)...and doubly so for calling others hypocrites in particular when your own logic makes you one, yourself. In other words, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, I believe you owe everyone you just insulted an apology. In any case, I think you need to study up on the actual definition of noninterventionism, because your understanding is lacking. Your post reminded me of a grammar Nazi correcting someone else's grammar in the most insulting way possible...and being entirely wrong about it in the first place.

I don't actually care about the Bush family's dinner plates, but satchelmcqueen is right about the way they demonstrate how out of touch the Bushes (including the lame-duck President) are with the rest of us. Plus, it really was worth asking whether or not we are paying for them. Thankfully, we're not.

 

[socialize_me]

you are a collectivist and a hater

Cry.

The fact is, America isn't as collectivist of a state as most of you like to paint it. We're very individualistic in fact. It's dog-eat-dog...everyone is trying to get ahead and we're abandoning family values and personal values for the sake of being an Individual.

Sea turtles are about as individualistic as you can get. They lay their eggs and let their babies hatch weeks later and by then the parents are thousands of miles away in the Ocean never to see them again.

You "individualists" are pieces of work. I believe in freedom and the right of personal responsibility, but the idea that any form of collectivism is bad is complete bullshit! I suppose the optimal world is to live without a family and be alone, slaving away just to better yourself to become what you want to be. It's very selfish and impractical. Humans are collective individuals regardless of the utopia you want to live in. If you're such an individualist, then go live in the mountains and abandon any form of civilization because civilization requires collectivism.

Now I believe in individualism and collectivism, so calling me one or the other is bullshit on your part. You're just a moron who lives in this fantasy land where you think radical individualism is the best way to go. Again, we're not reptiles who abandon our young. We stick with them until they're 18, we go to their football games, we help them through college, and we give them advice when they are raising their own kids. That's NOT individualism, dipshit. The radical individuals are the ones having kids and abandoning them since they have no interest in compassion. Human compassion is a collectivist theme, but your thick skull cannot understand that...and you refuse to even though you know I'm right because I am.

 

[socialize_me]

Expressing a verbal opinion on something is a whole hell of a lot different from interventionism. Going by your own logic, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, you'd be a hypocrite yourself for criticizing everyone else for their opinions (just like we're supposedly "hypocrites" for merely commenting on the Bushes)...and doubly so for calling others hypocrites in particular when your own logic makes you one, yourself. In other words, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, I believe you owe everyone you just insulted an apology. In any case, I think you need to study up on the actual definition of noninterventionism, because your understanding is lacking. Your post reminded me of a grammar Nazi correcting someone else's grammar in the most insulting way possible...and being entirely wrong about it in the first place.

I don't actually care about the Bush family's dinner plates, but satchelmcqueen is right about the way they demonstrate how out of touch the Bushes (including the lame-duck President) are with the rest of us. Plus, it really was worth asking whether or not we are paying for them. Thankfully, we're not.

Nah, I am a rational human being. I smell bullshit when I see it, and apparently when I point it out, I'm crossing the line.

Again, sorry I put some logic into your illogical utopia, but dreams need a nice kick in the ass everyone once in a while. You just don't want to face reality and reality is that I am sick of people reading People magazine, jacking off to celebrity gossip, while preaching to all of us how we should leave other people alone thousands of miles away from us, yet openly criticizing the choices of personal expenditures. The fact that I point shit like this out doesn't make me a hypocrite--being a human being makes me a hypocrite. I just happen to have the sense to admit it and recognize it and embrace it, but apparently none of you are at that stage yet to just simply ignore and not give a shit what type of dishware a fellow American purchases.

Who gives a shit?? Honestly?

 

[Mini-Me]

Nah, I am a rational human being. I smell bullshit when I see it, and apparently when I point it out, I'm crossing the line.

Again, sorry I put some logic into your illogical utopia, but dreams need a nice kick in the ass everyone once in a while. You just don't want to face reality and reality is that I am sick of people reading People magazine, jacking off to celebrity gossip, while preaching to all of us how we should leave other people alone thousands of miles away from us, yet openly criticizing the choices of personal expenditures. The fact that I point shit like this out doesn't make me a hypocrite--being a human being makes me a hypocrite. I just happen to have the sense to admit it and recognize it and embrace it, but apparently none of you are at that stage yet to just simply ignore and not give a shit what type of dishware a fellow American purchases.

Who gives a shit?? Honestly?

Apparently everything I said was just lost on you. Here, let me repeat it:

Expressing a verbal opinion on something is a whole hell of a lot different from interventionism. Going by your own logic, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, you'd be a hypocrite yourself for criticizing everyone else for their opinions (just like we're supposedly "hypocrites" for merely commenting on the Bushes)...and doubly so for calling others hypocrites in particular when your own logic makes you one, yourself. In other words, if you consider yourself a noninterventionist, I believe you owe everyone you just insulted an apology. In any case, I think you need to study up on the actual definition of noninterventionism, because your understanding is lacking. Your post reminded me of a grammar Nazi correcting someone else's grammar in the most insulting way possible...and being entirely wrong about it in the first place.

I don't actually care about the Bush family's dinner plates, but satchelmcqueen is right about the way they demonstrate how out of touch the Bushes (including the lame-duck President) are with the rest of us. Plus, it really was worth asking whether or not we are paying for them. Thankfully, we're not.

You're entirely incorrect about your understanding of noninterventionism, which means you're incorrect in your assessment that the people in this thread are hypocrites. However, you ARE a hypocrite - as you openly admit - because you are sick of other people criticizing people for doing/saying things, yet you're perfectly willing to do it yourself. The people in this thread - assuming they're noninterventionists - disdain the idea of a nation-state actively and foolishly intervening in the affairs of foreigners (or violating the rights of people domestically), on behalf of people that the nation-state does not even legitimately represent. Some might also disdain the idea of individuals intervening in the affairs of others, but even that is not equivalent to merely commenting on the affairs of others. In any case, people in this thread are only hypocrites if they criticize others while simultaneously opposing the idea of expressing an opinion on someone else's words/actions...and thus far, you seem to be the only person who takes that view, making you the only hypocrite.

I'd write a formal proof using mathematical predicate logic, but if the simple explanation above eludes you, so will formal logic.

 

[socialize_me]

Apparently everything I said was just lost on you. Here, let me repeat it:


You're entirely incorrect about your understanding of noninterventionism, which means you're incorrect in your assessment that the people in this thread are hypocrites. However, you ARE a hypocrite - as you openly admit - because you are sick of other people criticizing people for doing/saying things, yet you're perfectly willing to do it yourself. The people in this thread - assuming they're noninterventionists - disdain the idea of a nation-state actively and foolishly intervening in the affairs of foreigners (or violating the rights of people domestically), on behalf of people that the nation-state does not even legitimately represent. Some might also disdain the idea of individuals intervening in the affairs of others, but even that is not equivalent to merely commenting on the affairs of others. In any case, people in this thread are only hypocrites if they criticize others while simultaneously opposing the idea of expressing an opinion on someone else's words/actions...and thus far, you seem to be the only person who takes that view, making you the only hypocrite.

I'd write a formal proof using mathematical predicate logic, but if the simple explanation above eludes you, so will formal logic.

Well, it's obvious trying to debate with you is pointless. I won't change your views as that's apparent, but I can only hope you take a step back away from the literature and the theories and actually look at how reality works. To me, it's a big waste of time living in a fantasy land that many of you are unfortunately stuck in. Life doesn't work and cannot work in the optimal views of Rothbard. We are not individualists at all as that is what sets mammals different from reptiles. We care for our children collectively, and the ones that violate that collective compassion are the ones leaving their kids in hospitals or abandoning them in alleyway dumpsters. Maybe you want to live in a world where no one gives a shit about another--which is the world we're moving towards unfortunately--and that's a big thanks to the radical individualists. It's quite interesting how contrary things are viewed by you guys...you think we're slowly becoming a collectivist state when in reality we're becoming more individualistic. Divorce rates are at all time highs, our kids disown their families more often than ever, we move away from where we were born, we put so much emphasis on self-improvement at whatever the cost, and many times we don't even talk to our next door neighbors. People now trample over and kill fellow human beings for the sake of getting 50% off an Elmo toy. Life is now immaterial and readily expenseable.

That's individualism. The goal is to divide and conquer and the only way for that to occur is to make everyone not give a shit about another. Because if we were collectivists, we would all hang together and not separately. The way you view the world is upside down, yet you think you have it all figured out.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Who cares??? Seriously...for a bunch of non-interventionists, you all sure like to stick your nose in the gossip circles of bullshit that doesn't matter.

But how can I expect anything any different?? Humans are all a bunch of hypocrites. Jefferson was a great example of this...bitching about how bad slavery was yet he had no problem owning and boning his. This is easily excused as "Well, he was always in debt so he couldn't free them". The list of hypocrites goes on...

Thank you for contributing.

Jefferson is a poor example, which is a favorite of left-liberals. He inherited his slaves from his father in law and released them as soon as he could, FYI. He was a little hypocritical in other areas, but not that one (to my knowledge). America has a long list of famous hypocrites, indeed.

 

[Mini-Me]

Well, it's obvious trying to debate with you is pointless. I won't change your views as that's apparent, but I can only hope you take a step back away from the literature and the theories and actually look at how reality works. To me, it's a big waste of time living in a fantasy land that many of you are unfortunately stuck in. Life doesn't work and cannot work in the optimal views of Rothbard. We are not individualists at all as that is what sets mammals different from reptiles. We care for our children collectively, and the ones that violate that collective compassion are the ones leaving their kids in hospitals or abandoning them in alleyway dumpsters. Maybe you want to live in a world where no one gives a shit about another--which is the world we're moving towards unfortunately--and that's a big thanks to the radical individualists. It's quite interesting how contrary things are viewed by you guys...you think we're slowly becoming a collectivist state when in reality we're becoming more individualistic. Divorce rates are at all time highs, our kids disown their families more often than ever, we move away from where we were born, we put so much emphasis on self-improvement at whatever the cost, and many times we don't even talk to our next door neighbors. People now trample over and kill fellow human beings for the sake of getting 50% off an Elmo toy. Life is now immaterial and readily expenseable.

That's individualism. The goal is to divide and conquer and the only way for that to occur is to make everyone not give a shit about another. Because if we were collectivists, we would all hang together and not separately. The way you view the world is upside down, yet you think you have it all figured out.

The point of contention was, "Who is a hypocrite here?" I made my case very clearly, and you sidestepped it and started ranting about "the forum's" ideas about collectivism vs. individualism, instead. Since you want to discuss that now: If nothing else, you're wrong about my ideas, which you can find here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1851066&postcount=14 That's the downfall of judging my beliefs based on your assumptions about the forum.

Anyway, you're confusing selfishness and egotism with the philosophy of individualism, when they're really distinct concepts. In the political sense, individualism is simply the belief that the rights of the individual cannot be morally violated by force for the supposed benefit to the collective (which political collectivism permits). In the sense of forming opinions about others, individualism is the belief that people should be judged based on their individual actions and beliefs, whereas collectivism contends that individuals can be judged based on generalities and group stereotypes. These two types of collectivism are explicitly anti-individualist, and that is why I fight against them. They destroy the humanity of the individual and reduce that person to a number. You could argue - as I bring up in the post I linked to - that identifying with a group is collectivist as well. However, it is only weakly associated with the aforementioned types of more dangerous collectivism, because it is not necessarily anti-individualist, and it is frequently benign. In any case, empathy, compassion, and selflessness can be seen all across the spectrum from individualism to collectivism, though purely collectivist thought dangerously forsakes empathy for the individual in favor of empathy for the group. In reality, the most craven and selfish people are in fact those who seek political power for their own selfish gain, professing collectivist ideology as a means to obtain such power (and that pretty much includes every socialist leader in the history of humanity).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Caring for one's family and friends is not collectivist-it's responsibility. You've made the error that so many have made-redefining Rothbard's ideas and then railing against your own fallacious interpretation.

Cry.

The fact is, America isn't as collectivist of a state as most of you like to paint it. We're very individualistic in fact. It's dog-eat-dog...everyone is trying to get ahead and we're abandoning family values and personal values for the sake of being an Individual.

Sea turtles are about as individualistic as you can get. They lay their eggs and let their babies hatch weeks later and by then the parents are thousands of miles away in the Ocean never to see them again.

You "individualists" are pieces of work. I believe in freedom and the right of personal responsibility, but the idea that any form of collectivism is bad is complete bullshit! I suppose the optimal world is to live without a family and be alone, slaving away just to better yourself to become what you want to be. It's very selfish and impractical. Humans are collective individuals regardless of the utopia you want to live in. If you're such an individualist, then go live in the mountains and abandon any form of civilization because civilization requires collectivism.

Now I believe in individualism and collectivism, so calling me one or the other is bullshit on your part. You're just a moron who lives in this fantasy land where you think radical individualism is the best way to go. Again, we're not reptiles who abandon our young. We stick with them until they're 18, we go to their football games, we help them through college, and we give them advice when they are raising their own kids. That's NOT individualism, dipshit. The radical individuals are the ones having kids and abandoning them since they have no interest in compassion. Human compassion is a collectivist theme, but your thick skull cannot understand that...and you refuse to even though you know I'm right because I am.

 

[Mini-Me]

Caring for one's family and friends is not collectivist-it's responsibility. You've made the error that so many have made-redefining Rothbard's ideas and then railing against your own fallacious interpretation.

Come to think of it, that reminds me of a logical fallacy...man, now which one was it? OH YEAH, THAT ONE! It's easy to rage against individualism when you define individualists a priori to be self-centered divas.

 

[kathy88]

She's going to wear them on her ears.

you did NOT say that