|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 218 of 254:
| 
Mar 11 01:03 UTC 2006 |
I put monetary pressure on my bank by sometimes taking out the money I have
put into my account there.
|
klg
|
|
response 219 of 254:
|
Mar 11 02:33 UTC 2006 |
Who said RW could be the government?
|
richard
|
|
response 220 of 254:
|
Mar 11 20:50 UTC 2006 |
klg said:
"Do you support gutting Social Security and Medicare so as to reduce
the number of non-productive senior citizens who place excessive
monetary pressures on the government?"
Of course not. klg did you fail u.s. history/social studies when you
were in school? The PURPOSE of the government is to be a collective
force, derived from and by the community, to protect the community.
You don't protect the community by simply raising an army. You protect
a community by helping to take care of its tired, its poor, its sick
and yes...its elderly.
You would never say a soldier who has served his country in wars isn't
entitled to be taken care of later in his life with government benefits
would you? Well these elderly people, most of them, have served their
country in their own ways. They are the ones who kept this economy
going and this country functioning while you or your parents were
young. And you want to gut social security and medicare and toss them
aside as if they were worthless now that they've reached elderly age?
Just because you are so obsessed with taxes? If true thats really
heartless. When you get old, IF you get old, you'll want your social
security I bet and you won't complain a bit about medicare. But only
when you get old evidently.
|
keesan
|
|
response 221 of 254:
|
Mar 11 21:32 UTC 2006 |
The people who would start to collect social security next year have been
paying towards it all their working lives.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 222 of 254:
|
Mar 11 22:44 UTC 2006 |
Fair enough, but for most of their working lives they were paying in at
much lower rates than the working people of today.
|
richard
|
|
response 223 of 254:
|
Mar 11 22:47 UTC 2006 |
President Bush's highly influential economics guru is a guy whose name
most people don't know and they should. His name is Grover Norquist.
Norquist has as his stated goal the elimination of almost all federal
government social spending. His suggested plan to do this? Run the
federal defecit through the roof and bankrupt the government. He is
among those who think only the most dire of circumstances, i.e. the
government going bankrupt and having no choice but to make drastic
decisions, will get the government to consider gutting social
security, and he believes strongly enough that it should be gutted and
forced into privitazion, that he thinks creating these most dire of
circumstances is necessary and worth doing.
A guy like Norquist thinks the Iraq war is a win/win situation,
because it pushes their foreign policy objectives AND has the
government spending hundreds of billions of dollars and slowly
draining the government's coffers.
I'm sure klg knows who Grover Norquist is, in fact I bet klg worships
the ground this guy walks on.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 224 of 254:
|
Mar 12 04:35 UTC 2006 |
Richard, let me explain how you harm the liberal cause. Norquist has in fact
said he wants to shrink government to the point you could "drown it in the
bathtub." He is NOT, however, Bush's "economic guru." In fact, I'm not aware
that he has ever held a formal position in the Bush administration. He is,
rather, a member of a conservative lobbying group/think tank that has had a
great deal of sway within the GOP, in congress as well as the executive
branch. "Economic guru" and "head of a think tank" are NOT equivalent
terms. Get it?
When you misstate important facts, as you just did, you open the door to
being attacked on a single point and shown to be a liar, thus allowing
your political opponents (kludgieboy for instance) to paint you as one
whose otherwise truthful words cannot be trusted. You are guilty of
over-reaching again and again and again. Get a clue or shut up. You are
harming your cause.
|
klg
|
|
response 225 of 254:
|
Mar 12 17:24 UTC 2006 |
So, RW thinks we should go bankrupt servicing the needs of the old, but
not the pre-old?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 226 of 254:
|
Mar 12 20:39 UTC 2006 |
klg had ayn rand for highschool civics.
|
richard
|
|
response 227 of 254:
|
Mar 13 00:57 UTC 2006 |
re #224 cyklone, an "economic guru" is not an official position, it
is an unofficial advisory role, and everyone knows he plays that role
for Bush. You have presented no information otherwise and could not
unless you could somehow prove that Norquist and Bush never talk and
he never takes his advice. Therefore I cannot have misstated some
fact by asserting that he plays that role for Bush. He is widely
known to do so.
Also you again used the post to attack me. Do me a favor, do not
mention my name again in your posts. You undermine your own
credibility by constantly going after me, instead of just going after
whatever I stated. It is not your business, nor should you care, what
impact my views have or how I "hurt the liberal cause" If you are
incapable of debating ideas and views, without invoking people's names
and making your responses into lectures delivered to one particular
person, then you shouldn't bother posting.
Noone wanted to read you lecturing me in #224 about how I "hurt the
liberal cause" You could have emailed that diatribe to me and left
everyone else out of it. Lets just stick to ideas here. You don't
mention my name anymore and I won't mention yours.
|
cross
|
|
response 228 of 254:
|
Mar 13 03:12 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 229 of 254:
|
Mar 13 03:24 UTC 2006 |
Ditto. As a pro-choice woman, it scares me that Richard puts his (IMO)
extreme leftist position out there.
And lecturing anyone on how they should treat you after the way you went after
jep is pathetic on your part.
|
tod
|
|
response 230 of 254:
|
Mar 13 04:02 UTC 2006 |
I found it entertaining
|
slynne
|
|
response 231 of 254:
|
Mar 13 04:49 UTC 2006 |
If people making bad arguments were harmful, most Republicans would
never be in office.
|
klg
|
|
response 232 of 254:
|
Mar 13 11:43 UTC 2006 |
And neither would anyone else.
|
richard
|
|
response 233 of 254:
|
Mar 13 21:05 UTC 2006 |
re #229 I only went after jep because he called me a liar and worse repeatedly
and refused to accept my explanations. he did not treat me with dignity so
I used an apt comparison for the way I felt treated.
|
tod
|
|
response 234 of 254:
|
Mar 13 21:06 UTC 2006 |
Two wrongs don't make a right, Beaver.
|
richard
|
|
response 235 of 254:
|
Mar 13 21:07 UTC 2006 |
and what is *scary* about my views? if anything I am as libertarian as I am
liberal.
|
cross
|
|
response 236 of 254:
|
Mar 13 21:51 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 237 of 254:
|
Mar 13 22:31 UTC 2006 |
re235: not when it comes to gun control and emminent domain,
kemosabe.
|
richard
|
|
response 238 of 254:
|
Mar 14 00:40 UTC 2006 |
well cross your views come across as obtuse too some of the time I'm
sure.
|
richard
|
|
response 239 of 254:
|
Mar 14 00:42 UTC 2006 |
I also would point out that unlike Cyklone and numerous others here, I
actually post my statements containing political views under my real
name. I say nothing that I'm not willing to stand behind. Half the
people here won't put their real names behind a thing they type.
|
tod
|
|
response 240 of 254:
|
Mar 14 01:18 UTC 2006 |
I dont fault them for that. There are some nutjobs on the Internet.
|
drew
|
|
response 241 of 254:
|
Mar 14 01:29 UTC 2006 |
Re #237:
Maybe he's for people's freedom not to get their asses shot off?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 242 of 254:
|
Mar 14 02:50 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I write letters to the editor and congress under my own name.
Everything else; what tod said.
|