Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real
From: trees40 (trees40xxx_at_knology.net)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: trees40: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Previous message: Al: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- In reply to: Reuben Hick: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Next in thread: no.spam_at_for.me.com: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:42:08 -0500
Reuben Hick wrote:
> "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message
> news:I3BvJH.Ft@news.boeing.com...
>
>>"Reuben Hick" <reubenhick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:224Zc.7622$eE.1274@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:ch2hgd$34j$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3 trillion in deficits, now that's real conservatism! roflmmfao
>>>
>>>Great, then you agree with me that we need to cut off the gravy train to
>>>welfare deadbeats
>>
>>And my first deadbeat would be
>>
>>Wait a second. Welfare? We just gave back a scadillion to some fairly well
>>off folks...
>
>
> Repeat after me: "It isn't the Government's Money."
>
> Honest people normally "earn" money. Taxes are what is confiscated from
> them. When one party takes money from the earnings of another, we normally
> call that "theft". When it is done under duress we call it "robbery". When
> the party that does the taking of another's earnings under the threat of
> violence and incarceration is called "government" how is it that you call it
> "give back" when they don't steal as much as they did the year before? If
> an armed robber only stole half the contents of your wallet rather than then
> entire contents of your wallet, would you consider yourself evil and greedy
> because he "gave back" half your money?
>
> Now if you truly believe that it is the government's money, then you show
> yourself to be a marxist who believes that all people are wards of the
> State. Where no man ownes himself, yet owes his entire existance to the
> State. Traditionally we have called that person a "slave". Are you an
> advocate of global slavery? When a man owns himself, then the fruit of
> his labors are his, not the government's. Thus if the fruit of his labor
> are his, then when the government decides not to seize as much as they did
> the previous year, it simply means that the man got to keep more of that
> which was his in the first place. There is no "giving back" when it wasn't
> even the government's in the first place.
>
>
>> ...because we didn't need the money
>
>
> Spoken like a true thief. The Robber sees nothing wrong with taking from
> another person as long as the Robber perceives a personal "need" for
> someone else's property.
>
>
>>and now you are telling me we
>>did?
>
>
> Let me get this straight. You consider it wrong for a wise and prudent
> person who works hard and makes sound financial decisions to keep a certain
> percentage of what they have rightfully and lawfully earned. You consider
> it noble for others who have squandered their lives and their abilities such
> where they now lay claim on the Producer's assets. And it is the epitome
> of morality and virtue for this Taker, to be so lazy and cowardly that they
> are not willing to take the money from the Producer themselves, that they
> will appoint surrogate professional thieves to do the stealing for them and
> give them pennies on the dollar of that which was stolen.
>
>
>>And don't I recall that most of that money goes to the deadbeats that
>>were forced to put their life savings into Social Security...
>
>
> At least your recognize that the government uses "force" in order to make
> people participate in immoral and corrupt Panzi schemes that are really
> poorly formed masks for marxist income redistribution.
>
> But here is where your logic continuts to break down. Social Security is
> not a "tax", it is a compulsory "insurance premium". Your beloved
> socialist president FDR concocted that scheme so that future generations of
> socialists will have something to simultaneously bribe and scare recipients
> with. It is interesting to note that government employees in Galveston,
> TX took advantage of the opt-out program such where they were removed from
> the SSI program and were able to manage their own retirement accounts.
> Many of the retirees are making more off their non-SSI retirement packages
> than they were earning when they were on the city payroll.
>
> That could have been our future, but you socialists preferred to beat down
> the Producers for the benefit of the Takers.
>
>
>>so it could be
>>borrowed by the government years and years ago to do stuff our congressmen
>>agreed needed to be done just ever so much back then, so they can now hand
>>it out however they wish, and complain that we don't have enough money?
>
>
> Your sentences are getting to be as convoluted as mine. But in trying to
> parse that last statement I feel your pain, but your wounds are
> self-inflicted. Instead of bitching about how the government isn't
> falling lock-step with every thought, wish or demand that runs through your
> head, you should join the rest of us who are in support of the work of
> people like Newt Gingrich and the current US president and move the country
> away from a government "managed" retirement "system" and into individually
> managed retirement accounts ala The City of Galveston.
>
>
>>This is a pyramid scheme I think, and the head schemer is trying to get
>
> you to
>
>>buy in.
>
>
> Exactly. And that is why you should support George 'W' Bush and the GOP
> effort to ween the US off this "pyramid scheme" as you have so accurately
> described it. Forget the Libertine Party, they will never have the numbers
> to get this to work, and the Demoncat party is the original authors of the
> Social Security Scheme, so it is in their best interest to keep it as
> bankrupt as possible. Threats of bankrupcy allow them to continue to
> pillage the Producers for the benefit of the Takers.
>
>
>>The biggest gravy train you have in front of you is not your poor
>>deadbeat,
>
>
> Statistically speaking, the "poor deadbeat" is on the "biggest gravy train".
> The Social Security Panzi Scheme is something that we all pay into with the
> expectation of someday receiving a payout. The welfare system is just raw
> wealth transfer from Producers to Takers. The Takers, by definition,
> deadbeats who refuse to take care of themselves and expect the world to
> tighten their belt so that they can expand theirs.
>
> Interestingly, the Social Security laws do not require the administrators
> (read: your government) to actually make do on the so-called benefits. At
> any time, Congress can stop the whole process and there is no legal
> obligation for them to pass on one penny to those who may have forfeited an
> entire lifetime of "premiums" into this insurance scam.
>
> If you want to bash 'W' on mishandling the Social Security System then use
> some facts. The present adminstration is desiring to expand SSI to benefit
> illegal aliens from Mexico. In the US, a citizen is require to work 40
> quarters before being eligible for receiving benefits. An illegal alien
> from Mexico, under the current proposal, may use fraudulent documents as
> evidence of working only ten quarters before being eligible to receive
> lifetime benefits that can just as easily be received in their own country.
> Thus, an illegal alien can forge up some documents that basically state that
> he has been working in the US for two and one half years, and then can march
> up to the SSI office, just prior to deportation, and provide them with this
> "evidence" and his hometown address in Mexico, and expect to receive an SSI
> check every month for the rest of his life - courtesy you and the Producers
> here in the US.
You know, that and the illegal immigration position of Bush is a couple
of areas where he deserves some serious criticism. I know a lot of
people who are really ticked off about it. My only worry is that his
opponents are even worse on the topic.
>>it's your scadillion little companies obtaining parts of the
>>government grants your congressman brings back to show he is working for
>
> you
>
>>so you will reelect him.
>
>
> Its also those scadillion little companies that employ the vast majority of
> Americans, provide goods and services to Americans, and raise the standard
> of living for the entire world.
>
> If they get to keep a little bit more of their profits, then I am all for
> it. Why do you begrudge people who actually earn their food, clothing and
> housing, yet wring your hands over ne're do wells who pay back our
> "investment" in them with lowered standards, crime and filth?
>
>
>
>
>
- Next message: trees40: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Previous message: Al: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- In reply to: Reuben Hick: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Next in thread: no.spam_at_for.me.com: "Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
