Social Security
- Thread starter shadowsource
- Start date
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Hogwash!
Regarding Social Security, the number of aging Americans below the poverty line has fallen very dramatically as a result of Social Security. The same can't be said for the state of children because they don't and can't scare politicians into honoring their pre-elections "commitments." Since this thread pertains to social Security, Uncle Bill's comments are irrelevent, rhetorical flapdoodle. And your fawning appreciation of them should embarrass you, Miles.
Regarding Social Security, the number of aging Americans below the poverty line has fallen very dramatically as a result of Social Security. The same can't be said for the state of children because they don't and can't scare politicians into honoring their pre-elections "commitments." Since this thread pertains to social Security, Uncle Bill's comments are irrelevent, rhetorical flapdoodle. And your fawning appreciation of them should embarrass you, Miles.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Actually, Lavy -
Scalia occasionally votes for freedom of speech, and he opposed the heat-scanner (for pot grow rooms) searches of private dwellings, at least until such time as normal people have heat scanners, and then he said the cops could use 'em too. Maybe WallyWorld will put 'em on sale soon.
Otherwise, the justices in favor of Civil Liberties are, in order: Brennan, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and then it goes horribly downhill as we encounter the other Republican appointees (Souter was an Act of Whatever). This includes the majority in favor of "forfeiture." This gem, which the Founders would NEVER have allowed, allows the government to seize your assets BEFORE you're convicted, so you can't defend yourself. King George would have loved it!
Scalia occasionally votes for freedom of speech, and he opposed the heat-scanner (for pot grow rooms) searches of private dwellings, at least until such time as normal people have heat scanners, and then he said the cops could use 'em too. Maybe WallyWorld will put 'em on sale soon.
Otherwise, the justices in favor of Civil Liberties are, in order: Brennan, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and then it goes horribly downhill as we encounter the other Republican appointees (Souter was an Act of Whatever). This includes the majority in favor of "forfeiture." This gem, which the Founders would NEVER have allowed, allows the government to seize your assets BEFORE you're convicted, so you can't defend yourself. King George would have loved it!
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
true
I was being technical. I regard Scalia as a threat to anyone with a conscience. And I really do think his ecxception in the heat-scanning case will only last a few years.... It's a kind of Torjan Horse: He basically said the cops can use any consumer item to invade our privacy. Have you seen all the spy crap out there?
I was being technical. I regard Scalia as a threat to anyone with a conscience. And I really do think his ecxception in the heat-scanning case will only last a few years.... It's a kind of Torjan Horse: He basically said the cops can use any consumer item to invade our privacy. Have you seen all the spy crap out there?
M
miles
Guest
Lavy
Forgot to tell you. Luv your hat.
I'll bet you thought I was going to let you get away with your last post. Shame on you. Two hours in the chokey.
And another three hours for trying to deflect the issue and contradicting yourself in the process.
The issue is losing freedom. Not who is taking it from us.
First you say we aren't giving up our freedoms and that anyone who thinks so is crazy.
Then you lecture me that he Liberal justices want to preserve them and the Conserv. ones are taking them away!!
I don't care WHO is taking them away! At least we agree we are losing them.
Forgot to tell you. Luv your hat.
I'll bet you thought I was going to let you get away with your last post. Shame on you. Two hours in the chokey.
And another three hours for trying to deflect the issue and contradicting yourself in the process.
The issue is losing freedom. Not who is taking it from us.
First you say we aren't giving up our freedoms and that anyone who thinks so is crazy.
Then you lecture me that he Liberal justices want to preserve them and the Conserv. ones are taking them away!!
I don't care WHO is taking them away! At least we agree we are losing them.
Re: UncleBill isn't really that logical
What I give willingly is charity. What is taken by force is stolen. A very simple and basic concept except for the left which seems to see it as unfathomable greed, to actually have the temerity to believe that I have the right to dispose of my earnings as I see fit. It's this ludicrous and irrational concept of rights and freedoms upon which this nation's government was founded. (read last sentence with heavy sarcasm)
And this idea of freedom is also why the Right or Left has no business legislating morality in any form whatsoever. But both to some extent wish to do it. It has been demonstrated over the past 4 decades, however, that the morality chosen by the Left is far more destructive that that chosen by the Right.
That I am offered the choice between the lesser of two evils is why I am Libertarian vice Republican. As I stated before, to embrace freedom is to accept that life is not fair, that not everyone succeeds, but that each has the same rights and freedoms and is due the same protection of his rights by government and each is responsible for his own life and the choices associated therewith. To live in freedom means having to tolerate the stupid and irrational, the racist, the prejudiced, etc. It does not mean accepting their ideas and beliefs, only their right to have them.
And that is where I find the Left dangerously frightening; the idea that people should be punished for their thoughts. Like the recent news item of the kids in a high school given anonymous questionnaires to fill out with the guarantee of privacy. But when some offensive (ostensibly racist) statements were found, the offenders were subsequently identified and expelled. The thought police are here (or, more accurately, there). But I guess this is just more of my paranoia, right?
And I have never offered that any other nation is less collective than the USA. Which is why I want to see America remain free, not under the yoke of collectivism which is the demonstrated goal of the Liberal/Left/Democrat political leadership.
It is their goal and desire to have government as the solution to every possible problem that can arise in society. That is not a free society, that is a totalitarian society, the antithesis of the government designed by the founders of the American Federal government.
The reference was to the thieves in Congress who created the collectivist welfare state by the implementation of wealth redistribution, a fundamental communist tenet. In order to do so, they had to ignore their oath of office and they had to ignore and subvert the Constitution which forbade them the authority to achieve what they have via Federal legislation. Yet these people are touted as honorable and good men when they have no moral integrity.
If you really accept the postulate that one can lie and be honest, then we cannot in reality have an honest discussion because you have rejected the premise of objective truth.
But reality is, the Left's leadership repeats constantly demonstrable lies as if they were gems of truth.
The reason is that if they offer the truth of what they want, i. e., a totalitarian fascist state, they would be rejected by almost everyone. Thus their campaigns must be composed of lies, misrepresentation and distortion to mask the reality of their goals and intent.
And I beg to differ that Communism (or any collectivism variant) is a utopia. Since when did slavery become a utopian society? Is that more of the Left's ideology? That does seem to be the direction of their legislative momentum.
And to say that my freedoms are not being abrogated is either to lie or to be ignorant of reality. The IRS code is a grossly abusive and intrusive violation of my rights by stealing my earnings and by dictating how I may use and manage my earnings to possibly protect some portion of it from theft, e. g., 401(k), and similar economic freedom infringements.
No argument. I was responding to the statement regarding poverty which Johnson's Great Society and the War on Poverty were to correct. And as to the Republican abdication of reason on the welfare budget, that's precisely why I cannot support them, the lack of moral integrity.
If it's ludicrous and irrational in your opinion to declare that money taken from me coercively and given to others is theft, then you're merely illustrating the accuracy of my point which you call condescending below.
What I give willingly is charity. What is taken by force is stolen. A very simple and basic concept except for the left which seems to see it as unfathomable greed, to actually have the temerity to believe that I have the right to dispose of my earnings as I see fit. It's this ludicrous and irrational concept of rights and freedoms upon which this nation's government was founded. (read last sentence with heavy sarcasm)
And this idea of freedom is also why the Right or Left has no business legislating morality in any form whatsoever. But both to some extent wish to do it. It has been demonstrated over the past 4 decades, however, that the morality chosen by the Left is far more destructive that that chosen by the Right.
That I am offered the choice between the lesser of two evils is why I am Libertarian vice Republican. As I stated before, to embrace freedom is to accept that life is not fair, that not everyone succeeds, but that each has the same rights and freedoms and is due the same protection of his rights by government and each is responsible for his own life and the choices associated therewith. To live in freedom means having to tolerate the stupid and irrational, the racist, the prejudiced, etc. It does not mean accepting their ideas and beliefs, only their right to have them.
And that is where I find the Left dangerously frightening; the idea that people should be punished for their thoughts. Like the recent news item of the kids in a high school given anonymous questionnaires to fill out with the guarantee of privacy. But when some offensive (ostensibly racist) statements were found, the offenders were subsequently identified and expelled. The thought police are here (or, more accurately, there). But I guess this is just more of my paranoia, right?
I make the rash presumption that you accept the tenet that Communism is a variant of collectivism. In that case, the graduated income tax system, inheritance tax and wealth redistribution are fundamental tenets of communism spelled out by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. What does it take for you to accept reality? Or are you so coopted by the Left's rhetoric that reality is whatever their whim desires?
And I have never offered that any other nation is less collective than the USA. Which is why I want to see America remain free, not under the yoke of collectivism which is the demonstrated goal of the Liberal/Left/Democrat political leadership.
It is their goal and desire to have government as the solution to every possible problem that can arise in society. That is not a free society, that is a totalitarian society, the antithesis of the government designed by the founders of the American Federal government.
My reference was not to Condit or Clinton. The pitfall of assuming what is intended. Especially when the two reprobates were never mentioned in the thread.
The reference was to the thieves in Congress who created the collectivist welfare state by the implementation of wealth redistribution, a fundamental communist tenet. In order to do so, they had to ignore their oath of office and they had to ignore and subvert the Constitution which forbade them the authority to achieve what they have via Federal legislation. Yet these people are touted as honorable and good men when they have no moral integrity.
Interesting how telling the truth about the Left is condescending, a vicious personal attack or some other such easily discredited castaway. You keep saying there is all this inconsistency in the objectivist/libertarian philosophy but you have yet to identify any of it.
If you really accept the postulate that one can lie and be honest, then we cannot in reality have an honest discussion because you have rejected the premise of objective truth.
But reality is, the Left's leadership repeats constantly demonstrable lies as if they were gems of truth.
The reason is that if they offer the truth of what they want, i. e., a totalitarian fascist state, they would be rejected by almost everyone. Thus their campaigns must be composed of lies, misrepresentation and distortion to mask the reality of their goals and intent.
And I beg to differ that Communism (or any collectivism variant) is a utopia. Since when did slavery become a utopian society? Is that more of the Left's ideology? That does seem to be the direction of their legislative momentum.
And to say that my freedoms are not being abrogated is either to lie or to be ignorant of reality. The IRS code is a grossly abusive and intrusive violation of my rights by stealing my earnings and by dictating how I may use and manage my earnings to possibly protect some portion of it from theft, e. g., 401(k), and similar economic freedom infringements.
Another piece on Social Security that offers some thoughtful insight into the problems, the solutions and the consequent benefits of privatizing.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
Similar threads
