REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security

POSTED BY: PIRATEJENNY
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 07:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9670
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:57 PM

PIRATEJENNY


I was thinking why would anyone want to screw up the most successful social program in the histroy of the united States and the only thing I could come up with was this.

Bush and his administration is turning this country into a facist nation, Corporations are pretty much running things at least thats the road that we are already traveling on, and with the Bush admistration taking this country into economic failer due to war mongering and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big Corporation while constantly making laws to screw us common folk...just one example of this is getting rid of the bankruptcy laws
( eat your heart out Bush supporters)while still having all kinds of loop holes for the rich to weasle out of the laws. raising taxs on the common folk changing workers Comp laws to benifit the Corporations basically making this Country a heaven for the Corporations while not giving two fiddle sticks for the common person, and thats just scratching the surface of so many laws that they are trying to change or do away with

But getting back to the topic at hand my theory, the only reason why someone would try to ruin social security by trying to privitize it, is this

America is a capitalist society based on consumerism, well by all the changes that are coming about, poverty is going to rise, the poorer people become the less money they are going to have to buy things and consume goods, so of course the natural out come of that is businesses going out of business,

by privitizing social security and having people invest a portion of it in the stock market, will keep the rich rich while not having to worry about the poor saps that can't aford to comsume




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 1:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme. Having said that, Bush isn't trying to 'ruin'anything, but in fact SAVE it. He also isn't trying to privitize all of SS, but only give back some control over a small fraction of the $$ back into the hands of those who earned it.

The poor will continue to be poor as they keep doing things that keep them poor. Making poor decisions in life.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 3:17 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:


What are you, somewhere around 18 years old? You need to stop believing whatever the extreme left tells you to believe and actually think things through on your own.

Is Bush a perfect President? No. Is he ineffective? Possibly. Is he leading the country in a bad direction? Again, possibly. Is he the anti-Christ, corrupting everything he touches as he leads America down the path of fascism, while simultaneously eating little babies and whistling dixie? Not anymore than Bill Clinton was to the radical right that hated him.

Depending on your values, Bush may be a pretty poor president. But it's just silly to say that everything he says, does or even thinks is pure evil. Get over the fact that Kerry lost and actually think about the issues for 20 minutes.

Oh, and buy "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 7:06 AM

CHRISISALL


Clinton (although a schmuck) didn't get as many innocent people killed.If evil can be defined as self-rightious and plain stupid, then Bush IS EVIL!!!! If not...well then... he's, well, merely self-rightious and plain stupid.
Here'a few questions I've not heard asked.
In our government, by and large:
Are any of these people SMARTER than normal people?
Are they more INTUITIVE than normal people?
Are they BETTER EDUCATED than normal people?
Are they more capable of LOGICAL THOUGHT than normal people?
If the answer is no then why are people surprised when any administration does stupid things with no foresight or care?
If the answer is yes then we're ALL stupid and we'll DIE.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 7:51 AM

CONSCIENCE


The involuntary Social Security that the Demoncrats believe in is SOCIALISM plain and simple!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 8:12 AM

BARCLAY


No system to date has survived being totally capitalist or socialist. The American system of financial security has become increasingly socialist over the years. To cry that "social" security is "socialist" as if that word is one that's suppose to make us all run for cover is to deny the progress America has made as a country in its history, as one that is tolerant of those ideas that may be contradictory to its own. Of course, ignoring America's heritage of freedom of ideas seems to be popular nowadays, so maybe it's just the "in" thing to do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 8:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Barclay wrote:
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 08:12
...To cry that "social" security is "socialist" as if that word is one that's suppose to make us all run for cover is to deny the progress America has made as a country in its history, as one that is tolerant of those ideas that may be contradictory to its own. Of course, ignoring America's heritage of freedom of ideas seems to be popular nowadays, so maybe it's just the "in" thing to do.


Actually, I see freedom as always an 'in thing'. And the freedom of the individual to live their life as they see fit is unquestionably hampered by the Federal Gov't excessive taking from one to give to another. That isn't tolerance in my book, that's socialism. And yes, we should run for cover, when ever we get a chance.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 8:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 8:50 AM

BARCLAY


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Actually, I see freedom as always an 'in thing'. And the freedom of the individual to live their life as they see fit is unquestionably hampered by the Federal Gov't excessive taking from one to give to another. That isn't tolerance in my book, that's socialism. And yes, we should run for cover, when ever we get a chance.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "


We make a contract when we live under a government that we will surrender some of our individual freedoms in an effort to better the lives of all those under the government. It's why if you murder someone, you go to jail or get murdered yourself. It's also why you pay taxes to support "socialist" programs that likewise ensure the security of people who aren't you. Because if the government didn't do that, it could likely be as deadly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:55 AM

BYTETHEBULLET


I usually don't post on political threads, and I rarely post anyway, but I feel compelled to. This is not directed at anyone in particular...

President Bush is the leader of our country. He was voted into office. There are means to have him removed if necessary. No one seems to be trying to do that, but the Democrats sure like to talk about how the election was rigged. Why aren't they doing something about it. Prove it or shut up. President Bush, NOT Mr. Bush, doesn't run the country, there is a group in Washington that does that. Again, elected officals. I guess all those elections were rigged too, well, except the ones the Democrats won(I couldn't resist). Our country has been run this way for quite some time and it will be for, well, forever as far as we are concerned. The group in Washington does all the leg work and then they advise President Bush, that is how a Republic works.

Republic -
Definition: [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
[n] a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

President Bush does not pass laws, change policy, or declare war on his own(by himself) there is a little more to it. President Bush is not killing innocent soldiers. Thank God we have a volunteer military that protects us and our freedoms. Our swarn enemy, that declared war on ALL Americans, is killing our solders and citizens and we should pray for them every chance we get. I hate that Americans and our Allies are dying, but they are giving their life to protect you, me, President Bush, and all those people in Washington that sent them to war, where ever that may be, and our way of life. Our enemy wants to destroy our country because we have freedoms and beliefs they do not want to allow in their countries. Yes there is more to it, but it all boils down to the fact that Freedom isn't free kiddies. Infighting will only weaken our country and that is what our enemies want.

I am done. I prolly won't open this thread again so don't bother flaming me.


ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 10:55 AM

MACBAKER


Uh yeah Piratejenny! It's a theory. Completely devoid of common sense and rationality, but a theory none the less. Are you purposely trying to come off as a left wing extemeist consiracy nut, or is it completely unintentional?

How about some facts on this "most successful social program in the (history) of the (U)nited States" The experts ALL agree this successful program needs help! The question really is, how?

BTW: This process is how our Democracy works! If you actually believe our country is turning into a fasist nation, you obviously wouldn't know what true a facist is, if it bit you in the ass!

Here's an article covering the "offical" non-partisan review of Socal Security. Yes, it states clearly that Bush's Privatization plan isn't the answer, but it also points fingers at the Democrats for their plan to cut benefits.

If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.

Read it, educate yourself on the facts, and make an informed decision. Don't be swayed by extremist wackos! Then, instead of more impotent ranting here, write your reps in Washington for a change, and tell them what you think.





GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security - AP
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later."

David M. Walker, who heads the nonpartisan Office of Comptroller General, also criticized President Bush for undertaking an aggressive two-month tour to try to sell his plan for allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Walker suggested that Bush and members of Congress focus on improving financing for the program, which would not be significantly affected by establishment of personal accounts.

The testimony launched formal debate, before the House Ways and Means Committee, on Capitol Hill over Bush's plan to overhaul the federal retirement plan that began as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's post-Depression era "New Deal."

"I would have done it differently, I would have done it differently," Walker said, under aggressive questioning by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. In his opening statement, Rangel declared, "Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship."

The panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said in his opening remarks, "Clearly, the current program, because the American population has changed, is not sustainable based on the old method of financing."

Noting that Congress has not changed the program since 1983, the chairman also chided Democrats for opposing any potential cut in retiree benefits.

"In 1983, under the Democrat leadership, the solution included cutting benefits," Thomas said, adding that tax increases were also part of the 1980s remedy.

With polls showing that people are nervous about future financial shortfalls in the program, House Republicans intended to devote their first hearing to that rather than Bush's less popular idea of private accounts. Nonetheless, the partisan views surfaced in the hearing's opening minutes.

The trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of government programs later this month. Two trustees who appeared at the hearing, Thomas R. Saving of Texas and John L. Palmer of New York, said there have been no major changes in the program's demographics or financial outlook during the past year, but they joined Walker in urging immediate action on long-term program financing.

"We believe that action on it should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision," the two said in a joint statement released before their formal testimony. "Also, acting sooner rather than later will allow time to spread the burden of any changes across different age groups."

In his remarks, Walker said: "Social Security doesn't face an immediate crisis," but he added, "Time is working against us. The sooner you act, the less dramatic the changes that have to be made."

New Republican polling data shows "there is a rejection of the term `crisis' as an accurate description of the state of the Social Security system, and this rejection increases in intensity as the respondents get older," according to a copy of a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The analysis was based on 14 focus groups held last month in scattered locations paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP.

Older voters view a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," the pollsters wrote.

When focus groups are given information about Bush's plan, "the written description of the personal retirement account proposal creates majority support among all age groups (including 51 percent favor among seniors)," the memo says.

It also says public knowledge of the plan is sketchy and about half the "facts" that people recited about the plan were incorrect.

Social Security provides retirement, survivors and disability income for 47.7 million Americans, and Medicare provides health care to 42 million seniors and disabled people.

Last year, the trustees estimated that in 2018, the Social Security trust fund would begin taking in less payroll tax revenue than it needs to pay retiree benefits. The trustees estimate that by 2042, the trust fund will be empty and program will have only annual payroll taxes to pay benefits.

Bush has promised that any changes will not affect Americans 55 or older, but he advocates allowing younger workers to divert up to two-thirds of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts in exchange for a reduction in their guaranteed benefit. Supporters argue investment returns will exceed the guaranteed benefit they agree to forgo.

The proposal has been condemned by the AARP, a seniors lobby, and many Democrats, who argue the system can be tweaked to extend its solvency and that investment accounts are more risky than a guaranteed government benefit."


I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 12:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.

(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 3:38 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
[BBush and his administration is turning this country into a facist nation, Corporations are pretty much running things at least thats the road that we are already traveling on, and with the Bush admistration taking this country into economic failer due to war mongering and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big Corporation while constantly making laws to screw us common folk...just one example of this is getting rid of the bankruptcy laws
piratejenny, let me help you out with something.

This is what fascism means:
Fascism.
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control < early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism

Now setting aside the questionable accuracy of some of your accusations, what you are describing here is not a fascist state, but actually a capitalist state. You seem to disagree with privatizing Social Security. You seem to disagree with capitalism in general, and that’s your prerogative. Whatever your problem is with the Bush Administration or capitalism in general, Fascism is not what you’re describing here. I think you should back off on this fascist stuff, and examine what it actually is that you disapprove of, because whatever it is, it’s not Fascism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 6:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
http://www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:16 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
First of all, Social Security isin't all that great. It's nothing more than a Gov't mandated, over glorified ponzi scheme.


social security maynot be great in your opinion , but it's the best that we have..and it sure is great to those in need of it. Its a far cry better for it being here then when there was no no social security.

did I say he was trying to privativze it all?..no I did not, but the fact is he is trying to privitize some of it which would be a diseaster

so one has to ask why?....because its obvious to anyone with half a brain that privatization even part of it isn't the answer

Social security isn't your money or my money and it isn't meant to be privitzed its a government run insurnace program, Is it perfect?..NO it isn't!! But again its the best we have and Bush and his corrupt administration is trying to ruin it.

I do believe that this nation is turning Facist..is it facist now? ..NO it isn't, but it is becoming that way and I predict in the future based on whats happening now that it will be that way, that is my belife and I think there are plently of events pointing in that direction that is my opinion

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:26 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
...[/What are you, somewhere around 18 years old? You need to stop believing whatever the extreme left tells you to believe and actually think things through on your own. ]...


1st off my age doesn't concern you and I don't have to believe anybody about anything unlike some I can come up with my own thoughts , try it sometime!!

Quote:
...[/Is Bush a perfect President? No. Is he ineffective? Possibly. Is he leading the country in a bad direction? Again, possibly. Is he the anti-Christ, corrupting everything he touches as he leads America down the path of fascism, while simultaneously eating little babies and whistling dixie? Not anymore than Bill Clinton was to the radical right that hated him.]...


I beg to diffrer, Bill Clinton wasn't perfect nobody is including Bush, but the road Bush and his corrupt administration is leading us down could possibly even be worse then facism

Quote:
...[/Depending on your values, Bush may be a pretty poor president. But it's just silly to say that everything he says, does or even thinks is pure evil. Get over the fact that Kerry lost and actually think about the issues for 20 minutes.]...


I have many opinions about Bush, I wouldn't exactly call him evil, sometimes I look at him and actually feel sorry for him, Bush himself could very well just be a puppet with his strings being pulled, People hold Hitler up as the the poster child of nazism..but Hitler could not have done any of the the things he did by himself!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:30 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
...[/The involuntary Social Security that the Demoncrats believe in is SOCIALISM plain and simple!]...



why do you want to make this about Demcrates vs Reps or whatever

and Socialism happens to have some good aspects about it

look at a country like Sweeden which blends Social programs and Capitalism very nicely

you talk about Socialism as if its a bad thing both socialism and Capitalism have some good things and bad things

Socialism taken to an extreme is bad
Capitalism taken to an extreme is bad!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:38 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "


Thank you your Correctness

I know what a theory is and I think mines has enough facts in it to make it a theory!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:59 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
I usually don't post on political threads, and I rarely post anyway, but I feel compelled to. This is not directed at anyone in particular...

President Bush is the leader of our country. He was voted into office. There are means to have him removed if necessary. No one seems to be trying to do that, but the Democrats sure like to talk about how the election was rigged. Why aren't they doing something about it. Prove it or shut up. President Bush, NOT Mr. Bush, doesn't run the country, there is a group in Washington that does that. Again, elected officals. I guess all those elections were rigged too, well, except the ones the Democrats won(I couldn't resist). Our country has been run this way for quite some time and it will be for, well, forever as far as we are concerned. The group in Washington does all the leg work and then they advise President Bush, that is how a Republic works.

Republic -
Definition: [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
[n] a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

President Bush does not pass laws, change policy, or declare war on his own(by himself) there is a little more to it. President Bush is not killing innocent soldiers. Thank God we have a volunteer military that protects us and our freedoms. Our swarn enemy, that declared war on ALL Americans, is killing our solders and citizens and we should pray for them every chance we get. I hate that Americans and our Allies are dying, but they are giving their life to protect you, me, President Bush, and all those people in Washington that sent them to war, where ever that may be, and our way of life. Our enemy wants to destroy our country because we have freedoms and beliefs they do not want to allow in their countries. Yes there is more to it, but it all boils down to the fact that Freedom isn't free kiddies. Infighting will only weaken our country and that is what our enemies want.

I am done. I prolly won't open this thread again so don't bother flaming me.




ByteTheBullet (-:



I don't even know where to begin responding to this post

This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against

Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country

and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!

there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:03 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.

(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)



LOL Never!!

thats all they can do is name call..obviouly they are afraid , they just don't want anyone to poke a hole in there bubble of denial!!!

they might actually have to muster up some courage and do something if that happened!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:09 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Piratejenny- Don't let these right-wing goofballs intimidate you with their moronic name-calling.

(Let's see if they can figure this out on their own... heh heh heh.)


Are you referring to me? Sorry, I'm a moderate. In fact, you two need to take a certain beloved Captain's personal advice! You should give "some though to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle."

HEY! That's my signature!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:16 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
This is what fascism means:
Fascism.
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control < early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascism

Now setting aside the questionable accuracy of some of your accusations, what you are describing here is not a fascist state, but actually a capitalist state. You seem to disagree with privatizing Social Security. You seem to disagree with capitalism in general, and that’s your prerogative. Whatever your problem is with the Bush Administration or capitalism in general, Fascism is not what you’re describing here. I think you should back off on this fascist stuff, and examine what it actually is that you disapprove of, because whatever it is, it’s not Fascism.


After Hilter and Nazism, Facism got mixed up with the very definations decribed above but if you get back to the more accurate defintion , its about Corporations Controlling the government

I don't have a problem with Capitalism, I think just like any system Capitalism can be an is a productive one when balanced correctly

But once you get Corporations controlling things laws being made or changed to benifit the corporation without regard to the worker or humanity..when you get Corporations becoming so powerful that they are literally controlling everything that is facsim.

That is what is beginning to happen now in this country, that is also what happened back at the beginning of the 20th century, Capitalism was actually saved from facism in this country thanks to such programs as the New Deal

your correct in your defintion of Facism but so am I

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:36 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Ar
Quote:
...[/e you referring to me? Sorry, I'm a moderate. In fact, you two need to take a certain beloved Captain's personal advice! You should give "some though to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle." ]...



ok I'm guessing by you two meaning me also!!lol

you say your a moderate with such pride...so your in the middle where its so safe right,

well sometimes if you want to get the fruit you have to go out on a limb...its not so safe the branch could very well break..but hey thats where the fruit is...

I'm sure that beloved Captain of yours would have gave Galileo the same advice..but then if he had taken it we might all still be believing that the earth is the center of the universe!!!

I personally could careless what a person labels therself as if that Label somehow sums up everything

either way its ok

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:30 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
[BI don't even know where to begin responding to this post

This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against

Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country

and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!

there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!


So what's going on here? It's not OK for a "right-winger" to name call, but it's OK for you to do so. It's not OK for a "right-winger" to flame someone, but it's OK for you. It's not OK to be ignorant saps with no opinion--but if I should form an opinion that's different from yours (based, for instance, on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), then I'm an ingnorant wretch with no clue about what's going on in the world.

People are different all over this country. We don't all agree. The fact that we don't isn't a bad thing--it promotes discussion of ideas. But then there are the people who don't want a discussion of ideas--they simply want to vent their own anger or frustration. There are ways of starting a serious discussion about social security, its future, and the pros and cons of President Bush's plan without being mean-spirited. Naming a thread "My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security" indicates, to me at least, a mind that's already made up and isn't interested in hearing other points of view.

People who only want to name call, only want to insult, only want to tear down--well, that's why I tend not to come around this board that often any more. It doesn't make for civil conversation, and it doesn't help us all understand the issues that face our country. It's just ugly.

Now, I know, you're only trying to tell everyone the truth and show us why the President is so evil and bad, and how we're all mindless sheep, and how we're becoming a fascist nation--I'm sure that you sincerely believe that. But what I'm hoping you'll do is realize that like everyone else, you may be wrong about things. At the very least, realize that other people have opinions that are different from yours and respect their right to hold a different opinion without insulting them (for instance, implying that BytetheBullet isn't aware of the two-party-system dominating American politics).

If the radicals on the left and the radicals on the right realized those things, discussions will move out of the realm of 6th-grade-playground "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-unh!" "Yuh-huh!" and onto an adult level where we actually deal with things in a less hysterical manner.

Flame on.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:35 AM

BYTETHEBULLET


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

I don't even know where to begin responding to this post

This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against



There is ALWAYS a majority, it is just not the Democrates right now, like it has been in the past. Boohoo.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country



Again, President Bush was not alone in the decision to go into Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!



The Constitution changed? Really? How? Prove it.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!


Nope, I do not have a clue, sorry I bothered. My reply was not directed AT you alone. This is why I usually do not post on these threads. We shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.

On a side note, I do not pay into Social Security, Railroad Retirement is the way to go!


As for you INEVITABLEBETRAYAL...Thanks!


ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:44 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
That is what is beginning to happen now in this country, that is also what happened back at the beginning of the 20th century, Capitalism was actually saved from facism in this country thanks to such programs as the New Deal

your correct in your defintion of Facism but so am I
I think you are still confusing capitalism with Fascism. The difference being that the corporations that existed in Nazi Germany were controlled by the government, as a socialist state. Corporations that exist in a capitalist state are controlled by private enterprises. The US is not a pure capitalism, the government does have some control over corporations, but ideally limited and nothing like what existed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. But even still, it is generally Postmodern Liberals who usually call for increased government control of corporations, not generally Conservatives. Once again, I don’t think your problem is Fascism, I think it is capitalism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:21 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

by privitizing social security and having people invest a portion of it in the stock market, will keep the rich rich while not having to worry about the poor saps that can't aford to comsume


Hmmm... Now we know why Bush wants to ruin Social Security.

Now explain why he wants to save social security from ruin. Or maybe why Democrats want to ruin social security by preventing discussion of reasonable changes to a system on the verge of collapse. Its all in how you frame the premise.

The answer is Democrats think they can keep Social Security running with a system thats 30 years out of date. Bush thinks he can keep it running by modifying a system to reflect more modern economic and social realities. Oddly this makes Bush the liberal and the Democrats conservative on this issue.

They both think they're doing the right thing.

Before we condem either side, we might want to let them hash it around a bit before we take to the streets and demand regime change. An honost debate without any qualifiers (like saying, there can be no discussion so long as this or that is on the table) might just yield some viable new insights to make the existing system work better.

Personally, I like the idea of private accounts. But I don't think everyone will. I think we should be able to have them, but opt out if we so choose. If I manage my account well, then I'll get more then the people who manage poorly or choose to opt out. I want that opportunity, the opportunity to get mine and then some and more then others. And I'll accept the risk of getting less. Can't get more American then that.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:40 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Before we condem either side, we might want to let them hash it around a bit before we take to the streets and demand regime change. An honost debate without any qualifiers (like saying, there can be no discussion so long as this or that is on the table) might just yield some viable new insights to make the existing system work better.

Personally, I like the idea of private accounts. But I don't think everyone will. I think we should be able to have them, but opt out if we so choose. If I manage my account well, then I'll get more then the people who manage poorly or choose to opt out. I want that opportunity, the opportunity to get mine and then some and more then others. And I'll accept the risk of getting less. Can't get more American then that.

H


Hero, you're my hero. This is exactly what I was talking about when I suggested an actual rational discussion of the issue. Hooray for the forces of rationalism!

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:44 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think you are still confusing capitalism with Fascism. The difference being that the corporations that existed in Nazi Germany were controlled by the government, as a socialist state. Corporations that exist in a capitalist state are controlled by private enterprises. The US is not a pure capitalism, the government does have some control over corporations, but ideally limited and nothing like what existed in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. But even still, it is generally Postmodern Liberals who usually call for increased government control of corporations, not generally Conservatives. Once again, I don’t think your problem is Fascism, I think it is capitalism.


Hey, now! Let's not over-think this. On Jenny's view, Bush=pure evil. Pure evil=Hitler. Hitler=Nazi. Nazi=fascist. Therefore Bush=fascist. Let's not get bogged down with thinking, here. Jeez!

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:01 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against


Actually, there were no parties. Washington didn't like them and generally refused to join. Adams and the Federalists adopted him. Jefferson formed the original Republicans and Democrats (as one party). Then the Federalists collapsed. So after Washington and Adams we had single party rule for something like 20 or 30 years. Single party meant something then, as in 1 party. If you recall 1993-1995 we had single party control, the Democrats, like we have now with Republicans. They are the majority, not the only game in town. If you don't like that, maybe its Democracy you have the problem with. Giving people the right to vote is one thing, letting them vote for someone else...thats too much for today's liberal to handle.

Quote:

Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country


Hardly defenseless. Just ineffective in their traditional role. After the 1991 Gulf War Saddam's military was rebuilt into an instrument to suppress the people of Iraq. They were very effective at that mission, but against another army in the field...not so much. Likewise the US Army was designed to defeat another army in the field, thats why we aren't as good as Saddam at suppressing insurgencies.

Quote:

and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!


The most recent Constitutional change was the 27th Amendment, w/was ratified on May 7, 1992. Oddly enough it had been sitting around since Sept. 25, 1789. It had to do with pay raises not being effective for those who vote for them until after an intervening election.

You must be making reference to certain laws enacted after 9/11 such as the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court has yet to overturn this law, but has acted on a number of other related isues. Until they do so, such acts must, by definition, be Constitutional.

Perhaps your argument, in addition to being against Democracy, is also against the Rule of Law. Its fine for the Court to decide in your favor (an example being Roe v. Wade), but whats the good in having an independent judiciary if they don't agree with you?

Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein. Bush's fundamental principal is liberty, aka power of, by, and for the people. It seems that you oppose democracy and all its trappings. I doubt you and Hussein share other views, such as human rights, the enviroment, etc, after all liberals are hardly monsters. But your fundamental principal, that people need to be ruled by you and those you agree with, that people don't know what's best for them, thats something you seem to share.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:05 AM

CHRISISALL


cream.
Cash
Rules
Everything
Around
Me
This is where we start, left or right.
It's CASHISM!!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Bush is not Evil, nor is he a great leader. He's your average dope making good or bad decisions based on the knowledge he has at the moment.
Imperfection is inherent in the person, hence the system.
All WE can do is be the best us WE can be.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW... In science, a 'theory' attempts to explain something using known facts. Since you did not offer any 'facts' which support the claim that Bush is indeed trying to ruin social security, I'd suggest you rename this post. Why 'I think' Bush wants...,(or) MY VIEW on why Bush wants....etc. Just my $ 0.02.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "


Thank you your Correctness

I know what a theory is and I think mines has enough facts in it to make it a theory!!


No need to get defensive, I was merely offering some constructive criticism. Had you offered some of those 'facts', I'd not have had post my comment in the 1st place. Care to offer some facts now ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:39 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I'm just going to freeflow off on a tangent for a while .

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
If those were the only choices, I'd take Privatization over cuts to benefits. Fortunately, those aren't the only choices out there, and now that the issue is being discussed (Bush's real plan all along, IMHO), hopefully a better solution will come from all of this.

You may be right that Bush's real plan was to have a discussion about various ways to save Social Security so that a better plan could be developed, but that would surprise me. He's on record (going back to the late seventies) as stating that privitizing Social Security should be done - so this has been on his mind for quite a while. I personally think that he sees himself as accomplishing something the Republican party was never able to do previously, and that is getting rid of Social Security. He's thinking about his legacy. He has stated publicly that he governs more by his gut and his beliefs rather than by facts. He doesn't admit to making any mistakes - it could be interpreted that he sees this as a sign of weakness (or, at the very least, he cynically thinks Americans do not want leaders who admit to being human). He refused to participate in a German townhall meeting because they wouldn't guarantee the absence of critical questions. Those who are allowed to attend his public appearances are carefully screened to remove dissent (these events are not an attempt to convince anyone who is actually there - it's more just preaching to the choir with the main goal of providing appropriate visual sound bites for the nightly news [as a side note, I am absolutely fascinated with how this administration creates visual images and uses language - they are masterful. I really think they are the best crafters of message to the medium of television that we have ever seen. I always love to watch a craftsman work and so there's a part of me that just stands back in awe]). These are not the hallmarks of a person who is used to sitting down and negotiating. So you may be right that he just wanted to open a dialogue and brainstorm various ways to save Social Security. But his past actions do not support this behavior (at least IMHO).

There's so many different sides. Some people think Social Security is an abomination that must be gotten rid of immediately (that's one extreme - and is a view that has been held since the inception of the program.) These are the people you see using words like Socialist program (as if that automatically makes it evil) and Ponzi scheme. Some people think Social Security is one of the best social programs in the history of our country, should be preserved at all costs, and more programs like it should be enacted (I'm not sure if this is the other extreme - but getting in that general direction). I would place myself in the latter camp. The majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle with the main theme being they like Social Security and think saving the program is a good thing.

This is why it's important to pay attention to the language that is used. For years, the goal was privitization. That didn't poll well or test positively in focus groups. So the switch was made to private accounts. That still didn't poll well, it was too close to privitization. So the new switch was made to personal accounts. The same plan has been called by three different names - it's all marketing. And administration proponents of the accounts formerly known as private (to borrow the phrase from Josh Marshall) have criticized the media for using the discarded terminology and accused them of bias. Beautiful.

The new word of the month is "add-on". President Bush's plan involves carving out private/personal accounts from Social Security. This is not supported by the public who really don't like the idea of carving anything out of Social Security. So he's started calling his accounts "add-on" because this terminology is supported by the public - and, in addition, many of the Democrats have opposed privitizing Social Security by saying they have nothing against add-on private accounts. The proposal doesn't change - but the language does. Brilliant.

Okay, that's enough stream of consciousness for now.

*editted to change two words: didn't to don't (I'm having problems with my tenses today) and proposed to opposed (because the way I originally wrote it was the opposite of what I meant).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:54 PM

ZEEK


The logic in the original post is baffling.

Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?

I'm also lost on how privatising social security makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poor. If the poor invest their social security money well they have the opportunity to become richer. If they invest poorly then they may become poorer. However, I know I've always been told from day one not to rely on social security for anything. If you're not saving for retirement then you're in trouble. That's what I've always heard. That's one of the reasons why social security needs to be fixed.

Basically I'm happy with the new plan. If it means I get something over nothing, sounds good to me. It's not the best plan in the world but we make do with the best we can get.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Except that even non-partisan goups estimate that with a 10% return (which would be very good overall) somewhere between 25%-30% of the fund would be sucked up by fees. The only people I see getting rich on this are stockbrokers and mutual fund managers and the brokerages and banks that would be handling the money. Dollar for dollar, Social Security as it is currently run is more efficient at returning money.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:26 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

So what's going on here? It's not OK for a "right-winger" to name call, but it's OK for you to do so. It's not OK for a "right-winger" to flame someone, but it's OK for you. It's not OK to be ignorant saps with no opinion--but if I should form an opinion that's different from yours (based, for instance, on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), then I'm an ingnorant wretch with no clue about what's going on in the world.


Now this is just getting down right petty, I didn't name call , I don't think their is a need to name call, I simply pointed out after reading that posters post based on what they said that they must not be aware of current events, thats my story and I'm sticking to it, everyone has an opinion and I wouldn't dare try to stop someone from voicing it!!

actually if you want to look at who is doing the name calling throughout this thread I can assure you it isn't me so you should save your preachy rant for them!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:31 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

I don't even know where to begin responding to this post

This poster obviously isn't up on current event
maybe this poster doesn't know that there is one politcal party in the Majority right now and holds much of the power. something the founding fathers warned against



There is ALWAYS a majority, it is just not the Democrates right now, like it has been in the past. Boohoo.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

Maybe this poster doesn't know that Iraq was a defenseless Country and that you can't go to war on terrorist they aren't a country



Again, President Bush was not alone in the decision to go into Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

and I guess this poster has no clue about the changes to the constitution since the so called terror threat!!



The Constitution changed? Really? How? Prove it.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

there is so much stuff going on in this country right now, but I guess judging from this post this person isn't aware!!


Nope, I do not have a clue, sorry I bothered. My reply was not directed AT you alone. This is why I usually do not post on these threads. We shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.

On a side note, I do not pay into Social Security, Railroad Retirement is the way to go!


As for you INEVITABLEBETRAYAL...Thanks!


ByteTheBullet (-:


you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!

once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:39 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein.


how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!...I know what kind of person you are, as you've stated yourself with glee your the kind of person who would try to stop a little old lady from exercising her right to vote..yeah your some Hero!!

I think you are the person who finds that you have more in common with Saddam Hussein!! stop projecting yourself onto me!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:54 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
The logic in the original post is baffling.

Could you tell me the logical reason that Bush would want to create this facist state for? He's going to be out of power in 4 years. He knows it. What good will changing the government do him at that point?


I hope that Signym did a better job of articulating what I was getting at in my orginal post. I often post late after work and my thoughts are often all over the place, but I also know that there are those on this board like Signym who are aware of whats going on and have more information then most so they know what I'm getting at. I'll try to post more concisely from now on!!

Bush may or maynot be leaving in 4 years if he does leave then I have no doubt that Jeb Bush is standing in line to take his place, so really we aren't getting rid of Bush nor would we be getting rid of the corrupt administration, This Bush Administration is basically the same one that was in place under Bush Senior and I have no doubt it would basically be the same one under Jeb!!

actually Social Security isn't really broken so it doesn't need to be fixed, what it needs like any program is some fine tuning a new coat of paint so to speak...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 4:23 PM

BYTETHEBULLET


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!

once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't


All I have asked is for you to back up what you are saying but you have failed miserably. Some rebuttal. You have a closed mind and you are unwilling to broaden your horizons by listening to anyone that has different views than you.

Oh, you were the one that made it about Republicans and Democrats when you started bashing President Bush and his administration. You should go over to the Democratic Underground forum, they would love you over there.

At least we can agree that Firefly is a great show.


ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:03 PM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
Perhaps the real reason you find yourself in such vehement opposition to President Bush is because you find you have more in common with the likes of Saddam Hussein.


how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!...I know what kind of person you are, as you've stated yourself with glee your the kind of person who would try to stop a little old lady from exercising her right to vote..yeah your some Hero!!

I think you are the person who finds that you have more in common with Saddam Hussein!! stop projecting yourself onto me!!


To borrow a phrase from Senator Byrd (D, WVa)): "I was speaking as a historian" when I invoked Saddam's name in this hallowed hall.

You selectively quoted me. Thats fine. I stand by the original post and the idea that you seem to support democracy and the rule of law only so far as they agree with you. That's a problem you share with extremists of both sides...and Saddam Hussein.

Maybe you would prefer I invoke a more dated reference...Emperor Caracalla of Rome perhaps?

As for the little old ladies. Its partly true. I tried to keep little old people of all kinds from voting...for John Kerry. Its called campaigning. Happens during an election. People vote, they count them, we win, you sue. Happens every couple years. I'd also like to take their driver's licenses away...but that's another issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:29 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!


And how is that not insulting? How is that not petty? How is that not a preachy rant?

Honestly, Jenny, you have got to step back and let yourself calm down. You're speaking from pure unmediated passion. Passion isn't bad, but you have to channel it, direct it so that it will be effective. You're just sounding close-minded and ignorant.

Note that I say that sounding because I can't be sure that you really are as close-minded and ignorant as you seem to be. If you spoke less from passion and more from reason, I'd be able to effectively evaluate your arguments. But you aren't making any.

What you are making are accusations and pronouncements. You say that "Bush wants to ruin Social Security"--that's not an argument, that's an accusation. If you want to make an argument, you need to present some information that will support your case. You say, "Social Security doesn't need fixing"--that's a pronouncement. Once again, to make an argument, you're going to have to lay out your case: give us the reasons why we should believe that.

All you have been doing is stomping your feet and yelling harder. That may work on the playground among 12 year olds, but intelligent discussion requires reason. To be effectively persuasive, you have to convince someone of the merits of your case. All you have been doing is saying, "If you don't agree with me, it's because you are not aware of what's really going on". OK--well bring it. Tell us what's going on. Lay out your evidence. Show us why you're right. All you've done so far is grow more and more hysterical. And that's hardly a persuasive method of argumentation.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:31 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
To borrow a phrase from Senator Byrd (D, WVa)): "I was speaking as a historian" when I invoked Saddam's name in this hallowed hall.

LOL. Why am I not surprised that you're tapped into the outrage of the day, Hero?

I totally missed the reference when I read it a few minutes ago but after getting my semi-regular dose of Molly Ivins it all makes sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:44 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

you know I wish it was as simple as your making it out to be but its not!!!

once again you people keep trying to make this about Democrates and Reps or conservative and Liberals its not, its got nothing to do with that, all you have to do is see whats going on, but you don't or you can't


All I have asked is for you to back up what you are saying but you have failed miserably. Some rebuttal. You have a closed mind and you are unwilling to broaden your horizons by listening to anyone that has different views than you.

Oh, you were the one that made it about Republicans and Democrats when you started bashing President Bush and his administration. You should go over to the Democratic Underground forum, they would love you over there.

At least we can agree that Firefly is a great show.


ByteTheBullet (-:



I think I've more then backed up what I was saying, I read your 1rst post and I found it to be patronzing and long winded just the same thing, and no I did not make this about Reps and Dems you did that

I honestly could careless about either party, Bush and his administration are the ones that are changing laws and the constitution so therefore I'm going to mention them..your stuck on reps and dems...which frankly I'm beyond...I'm looking at actions and the outcome of those actions and who is behind those actions!!! wether it be reps or dems to me is not even the issue..its the fact that its being done!!



if anyone is closed minded its you..you who can't seem to look beyond political parties and not what is actually going on!!

but yeah if nothing else we can agree that Firefly is great!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:54 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
You selectively quoted me. Thats fine. I stand by the original post and the idea that you seem to support democracy and the rule of law only so far as they agree with you. That's a problem you share with extremists of both sides...and Saddam Hussein.


LMAO stand by what you want because your assumptions are wrong on both counts, I personally think your projecting but whatever works for you!!!

Quote:

Maybe you would prefer I invoke a more dated reference...Emperor Caracalla of Rome perhaps?


do what you like I'm sure you will anyway, I could careless espeically since I know nothing about this Emperor

Quote:
As for the little old ladies. Its partly true. I tried to keep little old people of all kinds from voting...for John Kerry. Its called campaigning. Happens during an election. People vote, they count them, we win, you sue. Happens every couple years. I'd also like to take their driver's licenses away...but that's another issue.


I always try to find something postive about someone if I can..at least you are honest as assine as you are or at least present yourself to be, some people seem to take great pleasure and pride in bing a 1rst class A-hole!!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:26 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:




Quote:
Quote:

how dare you, Hero...I could think up another name for you and it wouldn't be Hero.., sometimes I read your post because even if I know that I probably won't agree with what you say because its nonesense most of the time but I figure hey keep an open mind the person still might have something insightful to say but you rarely ever do!!]

And how is that not insulting? How is that not petty? How is that not a preachy rant?




1rst of all that post was directed at me and not at the issue at hand it was more personal and I felt it was insulting being compared to Saddam is insulting espeically when there was no reason to go there...it wasan A and B convo no need for you to C your way in not on this one!!!

Quote:

Honestly, Jenny, you have got to step back and let yourself calm down. You're speaking from pure unmediated passion. Passion isn't bad, but you have to channel it, direct it so that it will be effective. You're just sounding close-minded and ignorant.


I might be passionate but I'm not speaking from pure passion, Bush and his administration has done everything that I've said you maynot agree or see it the same as I do but its not like I'm making any of this stuff up..


Quote:
Note that I say that sounding because I can't be sure that you really are as close-minded and ignorant as you seem to be. If you spoke less from passion and more from reason, I'd be able to effectively evaluate your arguments. But you aren't making any.



I didn't start this thread to argue with anyone I was simply stating my theory/opinion of why Bush and his administration is trying to ruin Social Security take that how you want I gave my reasons for it and explained it . I didn't ever say you had to believe it or agree with it, perhaps I should have went into more detail as signym did in explaining the fees and such, sometimes I post thinking that people know about whats going on and not everyone is as up to date or aware. but my objective really wasn't to explain anything anyway it was simply to voice my opinion. maybe if you had not started in on the reps Dems stuff and had just asked me to clarify what I was talking about instead of going off on a tangent I would have done just that!!


Quote:
What you are making are accusations and pronouncements. You say that "Bush wants to ruin Social Security"--that's not an argument, that's an accusation. If you want to make an argument, you need to present some information that will support your case. You say, "Social Security doesn't need fixing"--that's a pronouncement. Once again, to make an argument, you're going to have to lay out your case: give us the reasons why we should believe that.


yep it is an accusation and just becaused I accused him and his corrupt administration of trying to ruin Social Security doesn't mean it isn't true...I'll say it again I was never trying to argue a point in the 1rst place. for one I didn't think I had to because it is a fact that Bush is trying to Privatize Social Security, that alone speaks for itself second it doesn't take a brainac to know that gambling with a goverment insurance program would be a failer its common sense Social Security is not an IRA or a 401K... thats why its called Social Security Security being highlighed for effect!!

being a thinker I had to ask why? would he try to do this..and I came up with a theory on it.

so there you have it!!

privitizing Social Security wouldn't work it would be a diseaster, the fees that you would have to pay to the banks and brokers is reason enough , not to mention that the Stockmarket is not reliable, that would amount to gambling

so why would Bush want to do it..it would make the rich already richer while the economy gets worse because of lack of jobs and a soft dollar it would insure a steady flow of money into Corporations and big business, it would cushion the rich from the failing economy while the poor just gets poorer...that was my theory


Quote:
All you have been doing is stomping your feet and yelling harder. That may work on the playground among 12 year olds, but intelligent discussion requires reason. To be effectively persuasive, you have to convince someone of the merits of your case. All you have been doing is saying, "If you don't agree with me, it's because you are not aware of what's really going on". OK--well bring it. Tell us what's going on. Lay out your evidence. Show us why you're right. All you've done so far is grow more and more hysterical. And that's hardly a persuasive method of argumentation.



the only ones I see yelling and name calling hysterical ignorant ring any bells all I see is a few posters in this thread including you, I never said I was right I said it was my theory take it how you want, you guys are the ones who need to be right so it seems,

I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!













NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 11, 2005 3:43 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!


Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

What doesn't seem to be be registering to that brain of yours is that it is entirely possible for someone to examine the same facts, to be fully aware of a situation to apply a good amount of thought to an issue--and then come up with something different than you. What you seem to be doing is saying that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid or uniformed. Every single time you've responded to me, to Byte, to Hero, you've accused us of not thinking, not coming up with our own ideas, and not being aware of current events.

I think you're just plain wrong. We're not insulting you--we're disagreeing with you. Why can't you seem to wrap your head around that concept?

Honestly, your angry rants and smug assurance that you--and you alone--know the reality of Social Security and the Bush administration are seriously hurting your credibility. At this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously because you just seem to want to throw a fit if we don't fall right in line with your beliefs. What is this, third grade? Grow up, Jenny.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 11, 2005 4:24 AM

BYTETHEBULLET


Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I guess its a hard concept for some of you to grasp that people can think for themselves, that based on whats happening that people can draw their own conclusions, its seems to be a foreign concept to some of you..you guys might want to try it sometime who knows you might can come up with a few theorys of your own based on whats happening if you actually gave it some thought !!


Ah, Jenny, still fiddling as the ship goes down...

Yet again, you've proved my point. I asked you to show me facts; I asked you to give me data; I asked you to make a cogent argument. And once again, you accused me of 1) not thinking for myself, and 2) not having my own theories about what's going on.

What doesn't seem to be be registering to that brain of yours is that it is entirely possible for someone to examine the same facts, to be fully aware of a situation to apply a good amount of thought to an issue--and then come up with something different than you. What you seem to be doing is saying that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid or uniformed. Every single time you've responded to me, to Byte, to Hero, you've accused us of not thinking, not coming up with our own ideas, and not being aware of current events.

I think you're just plain wrong. We're not insulting you--we're disagreeing with you. Why can't you seem to wrap your head around that concept?

Honestly, your angry rants and smug assurance that you--and you alone--know the reality of Social Security and the Bush administration are seriously hurting your credibility. At this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously because you just seem to want to throw a fit if we don't fall right in line with your beliefs. What is this, third grade? Grow up, Jenny.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.


I could not have said it better, thank you InevitableBetrayal.

That being said, I will leave this thread never to return as it is stuck in an endless loop.

I wish the best for all of you.


ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 11, 2005 5:10 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:

I could not have said it better, thank you InevitableBetrayal.

That being said, I will leave this thread never to return as it is stuck in an endless loop.

I wish the best for all of you.


ByteTheBullet (-:


Take it easy Byte. Hope I run into you in a more civil thread.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL