Challenge Accepted, Sheetwise (What Democrats Believe)

[SammyKid11]

Please provide me ANY proof that you have that it WAS meant to be the sole source.

This is what's so interesting about you conservatives. Instead of recognizing the reality that this IS what many elderly depend upon as their sole source of income, you'd rather ask for evidence of what the original intentions of long-since dead men were almost 100 years ago. What you're missing is that when Social Security was first envisioned, farming was still the primary source of income for most of the citizens of this country. So, sure, in that sense I'm sure the creators of SS figured most of its recipients would also still eat the vegetables they grew and sell what they didn't eat. They didn't have the foresight to look ahead to a day when that wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of Americans. They also didn't have the foresight to build a gradually-rising retirement age into the original program...because they didn't foresee the rapid rise in life expectancy that was to come. This is exactly why strict constructionism doesn't WORK -- because it doesn't account for a changing time. Ultimately, I don't really care what percentage of income people almost 100 years ago saw SS accounting for. It'd be like asking about whether people saw leeches as actually BAD for you 100 years ago (which they didn't, doctors used them on patients)...those opinions are now irrelevant in the modern world. Irrelevancy is something at which you seem to excel.

You are correct. It is BEING SPENT BY THE GOVERNMENT!


So what? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument. Yes, SS dollars are being spent by the government...it is part of how Bush paid for his war! The original argument, though, that private accounts are a gift to Wall Street...it is money that is currently NOT in the stock market that under Bush's private account plan WOULD be spent in the stock market. What part of this do you not understand? I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

Who is Wall Street? Who is it going to make richer? I really want you to think about it, do not just give the talking-points response. If the money is invested in "Wall Street", WHO will benefit? Could it be that, gasp, the OWNER OF THE MONEY will benefit. Can't have that now, need to keep the people relying on the government for everything....

Yes, maybe the owner of the money will benefit. And if you would READ the things I've written in this thread instead of picking individual lines out of context that you can write a one-liner in opposition to, you'd see that I've never said that I thought optional private accounts were necessarily a bad idea. All I've said about them is:
1) They are a windfall for Wall Street, and you're completely naive if you don't think this enters into the fervor with which many Republicans support the idea.
2) They won't create total solvency for the SS system, which needs to raise its retirement age to reflect today's average lifespan...not the average lifespan of 80 years ago.

That's it. That you're making those arguments indicates that you are simply not reading the things I've been writing.

What about all those Wall Street Democrats. Please look up who the richest in the Senate and House are. Look up where these people made their money. Would it shock you to find out that many of your precious Democratic leaders made money on, gasp, Wall Street.

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant to my point. I never said I hate Wall Street or the stock or bond markets, I simply said Bush's private account plan is at least partially motivated by the benefit this would give to these people (yes, investment bankers and stockbrokers would make a lot of money if the Bush SS plan was enacted...you're a fool if you think otherwise). I've never said it was a reason not to do it, just that it's part of the motive and that I don't believe it is the end-all be-all fix for the system. How Democratic congressmen made their money has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...it's just another diversionary, sound-byte tactic by you.



As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization...On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.


Here you are STILL being intellectually (I use that word lightly in your case) dishonest. I believe Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, jackass...and I know he was a Republican. It still has not one ounce more to do with the debate in THIS thread than it did the first time you posted it. We were talking about the Civil Rights movement of the NINETEEN-60's...and the debate was about which party deserves more credit for that movement. Lincoln freeing the slaves a HUNDRED years earlier simply had nothing to do with the discussion. Your irrelevance knows no bounds.

Good, let's start. The Federal Government has no right whatsoever to say what can be done in the schools of a given state. Why? Because its a States right that the Federal Government has stolen, and the people have let them. Game over, YOU lose.

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees us that there will be a clear separation between Church and State. When individual STATES try to violate that piece of the Constitution, it is not only the federal government's perview, it is their OBLIGATION to intercede. Having prayer in public schools which children are required by law to attend (if they don't have the money to attend private schools) is a violation of their civil rights. As a proud athiest, I for one would sue the pants off any school district that subjected my child to prayer in a public school. And I'd be well within my Constitutional rights to do so. You don't win this argument by claiming states' rights...states do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority. And regardless of what you think, your position is never going to be the law. Allow reality to sink in...the courts have ruled time and again on this issue, and you HAVE, in FACT...lost.

So, we can't use my comparison, we have to use yours. See, your argument only works in a vaccum, that's why you don't wan't to discuss mine.


YOUR argument only works when you compare apples and oranges, ecstasy and crack. MY argument works when you compare different forms of the VERY SAME DRUG. And I'll notice that you're not willing to debate my, more parallel example...because it is patently racist and the only people trying to change the issue are Democrats.

Because the Republicans have had a stranglehold on Congress for almost 50 years now... You make ZERO sense. How could the Republican's have forced through legislation AT ALL in the past 50 years? Face it, any law passed from 1940-1992 was passed with the ENDORSEMENT (whether expressed or implied) of the Democratic Party.


Ronald Reagan, through force and effect of his extreme personal popularity, got a lot of stuff through Congress that Democrats didn't want. Now, I blame the Democratic Party for not better standing up to him and other Republican presidents...but the fact remains that on the issue I'm actually speaking of (mandatory minimums on crack vs. powder cocaine), the only people attempting to right this wrong are Dems. Do you actually have anything to SAY on the issue...or are you just going to keep lobbing meaningless platitudes that skirt the subject?

I don't want business over regulated.


Yeah, thanks...you've thrown that meaningless one-liner out three times now. It sounds to me like you don't want business regulated at ALL...but then, I wouldn't know, because you haven't quantified or supported your preference at ALL.

So, you think it's right for Cyrus to marry his sister? Is that the position that you are taking? Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incest. Because it's not fair to discriminate against people who REALLY love their family.


You are truly a sick, misguided, twisted, and possibly quite evil individual to compare homosexuality to incest. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the subject, yet sadly you're not the first Christian conservative from whom I've heard it. And for the record, if two consenting, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister adults decide they want to get married...I still don't think it's any of the government's damn business. But there doesn't seem to be an outcry in the Incest community for the government to quit denying them that right...there IS in the homosexual community, and you are a total buffoon for making this comparison.

In fact, I'm done responding to your horseshit, now and forever. You've accused me of rooting against our soldiers and now you've compared homosexuality to incest. You can rot in your fictitious hell for all I care. But arguing with someone who believes the government should legislate religion but NOT take care of the needy if it means any taxes at all is a waste of my time.

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide me ANY proof that you have that it WAS meant to be the sole source.

This is what's so interesting about you conservatives. Instead of recognizing the reality that this IS what many elderly depend upon as their sole source of income, you'd rather ask for evidence of what the original intentions of long-since dead men were almost 100 years ago. What you're missing is that when Social Security was first envisioned, farming was still the primary source of income for most of the citizens of this country. So, sure, in that sense I'm sure the creators of SS figured most of its recipients would also still eat the vegetables they grew and sell what they didn't eat. They didn't have the foresight to look ahead to a day when that wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of Americans. They also didn't have the foresight to build a gradually-rising retirement age into the original program...because they didn't foresee the rapid rise in life expectancy that was to come. This is exactly why strict constructionism doesn't WORK -- because it doesn't account for a changing time. Ultimately, I don't really care what percentage of income people almost 100 years ago saw SS accounting for. It'd be like asking about whether people saw leeches as actually BAD for you 100 years ago (which they didn't, doctors used them on patients)...those opinions are now irrelevant in the modern world. Irrelevancy is something at which you seem to excel.

You are correct. It is BEING SPENT BY THE GOVERNMENT!


So what? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument. Yes, SS dollars are being spent by the government...it is part of how Bush paid for his war! The original argument, though, that private accounts are a gift to Wall Street...it is money that is currently NOT in the stock market that under Bush's private account plan WOULD be spent in the stock market. What part of this do you not understand? I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

Who is Wall Street? Who is it going to make richer? I really want you to think about it, do not just give the talking-points response. If the money is invested in "Wall Street", WHO will benefit? Could it be that, gasp, the OWNER OF THE MONEY will benefit. Can't have that now, need to keep the people relying on the government for everything....

Yes, maybe the owner of the money will benefit. And if you would READ the things I've written in this thread instead of picking individual lines out of context that you can write a one-liner in opposition to, you'd see that I've never said that I thought optional private accounts were necessarily a bad idea. All I've said about them is:
1) They are a windfall for Wall Street, and you're completely naive if you don't think this enters into the fervor with which many Republicans support the idea.
2) They won't create total solvency for the SS system, which needs to raise its retirement age to reflect today's average lifespan...not the average lifespan of 80 years ago.

That's it. That you're making those arguments indicates that you are simply not reading the things I've been writing.

What about all those Wall Street Democrats. Please look up who the richest in the Senate and House are. Look up where these people made their money. Would it shock you to find out that many of your precious Democratic leaders made money on, gasp, Wall Street.

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant to my point. I never said I hate Wall Street or the stock or bond markets, I simply said Bush's private account plan is at least partially motivated by the benefit this would give to these people (yes, investment bankers and stockbrokers would make a lot of money if the Bush SS plan was enacted...you're a fool if you think otherwise). I've never said it was a reason not to do it, just that it's part of the motive and that I don't believe it is the end-all be-all fix for the system. How Democratic congressmen made their money has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...it's just another diversionary, sound-byte tactic by you.



As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization...On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.


Here you are STILL being intellectually (I use that word lightly in your case) dishonest. I believe Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, jackass...and I know he was a Republican. It still has not one ounce more to do with the debate in THIS thread than it did the first time you posted it. We were talking about the Civil Rights movement of the NINETEEN-60's...and the debate was about which party deserves more credit for that movement. Lincoln freeing the slaves a HUNDRED years earlier simply had nothing to do with the discussion. Your irrelevance knows no bounds.

Good, let's start. The Federal Government has no right whatsoever to say what can be done in the schools of a given state. Why? Because its a States right that the Federal Government has stolen, and the people have let them. Game over, YOU lose.

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees us that there will be a clear separation between Church and State. When individual STATES try to violate that piece of the Constitution, it is not only the federal government's perview, it is their OBLIGATION to intercede. Having prayer in public schools which children are required by law to attend (if they don't have the money to attend private schools) is a violation of their civil rights. As a proud athiest, I for one would sue the pants off any school district that subjected my child to prayer in a public school. And I'd be well within my Constitutional rights to do so. You don't win this argument by claiming states' rights...states do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority. And regardless of what you think, your position is never going to be the law. Allow reality to sink in...the courts have ruled time and again on this issue, and you HAVE, in FACT...lost.

So, we can't use my comparison, we have to use yours. See, your argument only works in a vaccum, that's why you don't wan't to discuss mine.


YOUR argument only works when you compare apples and oranges, ecstasy and crack. MY argument works when you compare different forms of the VERY SAME DRUG. And I'll notice that you're not willing to debate my, more parallel example...because it is patently racist and the only people trying to change the issue are Democrats.

Because the Republicans have had a stranglehold on Congress for almost 50 years now... You make ZERO sense. How could the Republican's have forced through legislation AT ALL in the past 50 years? Face it, any law passed from 1940-1992 was passed with the ENDORSEMENT (whether expressed or implied) of the Democratic Party.


Ronald Reagan, through force and effect of his extreme personal popularity, got a lot of stuff through Congress that Democrats didn't want. Now, I blame the Democratic Party for not better standing up to him and other Republican presidents...but the fact remains that on the issue I'm actually speaking of (mandatory minimums on crack vs. powder cocaine), the only people attempting to right this wrong are Dems. Do you actually have anything to SAY on the issue...or are you just going to keep lobbing meaningless platitudes that skirt the subject?

I don't want business over regulated.


Yeah, thanks...you've thrown that meaningless one-liner out three times now. It sounds to me like you don't want business regulated at ALL...but then, I wouldn't know, because you haven't quantified or supported your preference at ALL.

So, you think it's right for Cyrus to marry his sister? Is that the position that you are taking? Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incest. Because it's not fair to discriminate against people who REALLY love their family.


You are truly a sick, misguided, twisted, and possibly quite evil individual to compare homosexuality to incest. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the subject, yet sadly you're not the first Christian conservative from whom I've heard it. And for the record, if two consenting, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister adults decide they want to get married...I still don't think it's any of the government's damn business. But there doesn't seem to be an outcry in the Incest community for the government to quit denying them that right...there IS in the homosexual community, and you are a total buffoon for making this comparison.

In fact, I'm done responding to your horseshit, now and forever. You've accused me of rooting against our soldiers and now you've compared homosexuality to incest. You can rot in your fictitious hell for all I care. But arguing with someone who believes the government should legislate religion but NOT take care of the needy if it means any taxes at all is a waste of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]




jaxmike just got...

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uhh. you are making the same mistake again. Being opposed to Social Security legislation does not mean you want old people starve. It means you don't think the legislation is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote reminds me of vegas cabis who consistently tell me that poker players are the worst tippers ever


se la vi

edit: ironically enough, i am not like natedoogg and most of the 2+2ers that are way aboe the 200k annual threshhold.....i find this hillarious yet sad.....



i understand i am a rare breed, even amongst my own

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

200K? I f'n wish.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think is the goal of Social Security? Whatever you answer, I will then explain why Social Security is a bad solution to that goal.


[/ QUOTE ]

natedogg

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incest. Because it's not fair to discriminate against people who REALLY love their family.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read on this forum in the last two weeks. Consensual gay marriage is the same thing as non-consensual rape of a family member. Man you are going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

As smart as you think you are, clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word incest. Here it is.

Incest -
1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.

Now, since you are smart enough to damn me to hell, can you explain how I EVER said ANYTHING about non-consensual rape?

Do you understand that I was not, in any way, condoning rape? I was simply pointing out that the EXACT same logic that is used to justify gay marriage also justifies incest.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say conservatives (and Republicans who call themselves "conservative" but really aren't) are immune ...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why single out liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they think they're immune.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was saying was that there was no "spike" in illegimate births, but rather a steady rise that started well before the War on Poverty was launched.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a steady rise in all populations. The black population was specifically targeted with economic programs that had a negative impact on family. No other identifiable group suffered as much decline as the group the Democrats chose to help (?)

The rhetoric in that period was, as always, thick. The reasoning, poor. The emotion, high. There were voices of reason in the Democratic party, one was Patrick Moynihan. While I often disagreed with him -- he listened as well as he spoke, and he was always well reasoned. He understood the folly.

I'll repeat. No other identifiable group suffered as much decline as the group the Democrats chose to help. Blacks. I won't repeat the relationship that existed hours before Democrats became the "best friend" of black voters.

Since this is a poker forum -- I'll simply suggest that the Democrats may have been slow-playing that hand. What's amazing is that people are still buying the rhetoric and the actions haven't changed much. What have Democrats done for blacks in the last 30 years?

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say conservatives (and Republicans who call themselves "conservative" but really aren't) are immune ...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why single out liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they think they're immune.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but the person who I was talking to when I wrote that can speak for himself.

Also, the fact that he excluded conservatives from his initial assertion would indicate, if anything, that conservatives believe they are immune.

[SheetWise]

WTF

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
So what? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument. Yes, SS dollars are being spent by the government...it is part of how Bush paid for his war!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not HIS war, their war.

[ QUOTE ]
The original argument, though, that private accounts are a gift to Wall Street...it is money that is currently NOT in the stock market that under Bush's private account plan WOULD be spent in the stock market. What part of this do you not understand? I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between spending and investing.
[ QUOTE ]
How Democratic congressmen made their money has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...it's just another diversionary, sound-byte tactic by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being VERY hypocritical. You claim I am using a sound byte tactic when YOU did so first by associating those on Wall Street with Republicans. I simply stated that there are Democrats that made money on Wall Street as well, and you chastize (sp) me for it. Do you NOT see the problem here? It is YOU doing the "sound byting", but you don't even realize it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees us that there will be a clear separation between Church and State.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it imply's it SOMEWHAT. Here is what it says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That is the first part of the first amendment. Please tell me how this is a "clear seperation" between Church and State. ALL it says is that there will be no national religion in the United States.

[ QUOTE ]
When individual STATES try to violate that piece of the Constitution, it is not only the federal government's perview, it is their OBLIGATION to intercede.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is something that is debated by Constitutional scholars.

Here is the particular Amendment to the Constitution that imposes Bill of Rights protections on the State level. Again, I do not see how a school board choosing to have prayer in their classrooms is in ANY way in violation of the 1st or 14th Amendment. It is NOT being Legislated.

[ QUOTE ]
Having prayer in public schools which children are required by law to attend (if they don't have the money to attend private schools) is a violation of their civil rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How?

[ QUOTE ]
As a proud athiest, I for one would sue the pants off any school district that subjected my child to prayer in a public school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You don't have the right to do that. Or shouldn't. If you don't like how your community runs its schools, move. That is the way it should be. The government should not be in the middle of teaching and raising your child. That's YOUR job.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'd be well within my Constitutional rights to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe you do.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't win this argument by claiming states' rights...states do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority. And regardless of what you think, your position is never going to be the law. Allow reality to sink in...the courts have ruled time and again on this issue, and you HAVE, in FACT...lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how courts have ruled, and overruled. Look up the issue, and the history. You will see that it was NOT always the way it is now. The attack on religion by "your people" has only begun to succeed recently.

[ QUOTE ]
YOUR argument only works when you compare apples and oranges, ecstasy and crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is worse? How are they really so different?

[ QUOTE ]
MY argument works when you compare different forms of the VERY SAME DRUG. And I'll notice that you're not willing to debate my, more parallel example...because it is patently racist and the only people trying to change the issue are Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not racist. There are mandatory minimums on Crack; so, they are mandatory minimums on Extacy. If you DON'T BREAK THE LAW, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND REALIZE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BREAKING THE LAW, NO MATTER WHAT COLOR THEY ARE.

[ QUOTE ]
but the fact remains that on the issue I'm actually speaking of (mandatory minimums on crack vs. powder cocaine), the only people attempting to right this wrong are Dems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a wrong. I see criminals, I do NOT care what color they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually have anything to SAY on the issue...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think you are being ignorant. You can't seem to understand that its irrelevant. If the people didn't commit the crime, this wouldn't be an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
You are truly a sick, misguided, twisted, and possibly quite evil individual to compare homosexuality to incest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that if you think people who are homosexual are being discriminated against, then you must also think that people who want to commit incest are being discriminated against. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it less true.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the subject, yet sadly you're not the first Christian conservative from whom I've heard it. And for the record, if two consenting, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister adults decide they want to get married...I still don't think it's any of the government's damn business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, because the government grants a marriage license, it is their business. If marriage is going to be a legal institution, it IS the governments business.

[ QUOTE ]
But there doesn't seem to be an outcry in the Incest community for the government to quit denying them that right...there IS in the homosexual community, and you are a total buffoon for making this comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think not, I just think that if the reason that you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry is because they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed means that you would have to feel the same way about those who want to commit incest, or you are a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I'm done responding to your horseshit, now and forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so, you cannot win the debate.

[ QUOTE ]
You've accused me of rooting against our soldiers

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said it is my opinion of you.

[ QUOTE ]
and now you've compared homosexuality to incest.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't. That is what YOU did. I simply said that the logical reason that you are using works equally well, and equally appropriately to both.

[ QUOTE ]
You can rot in your fictitious hell for all I care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sentiment. Thanks, you are obviously a kind person.

[ QUOTE ]
But rguing with someone who believes the government should legislate religion but NOT take care of the needy if it means any taxes at all is a waste of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know where you got the ideas you state. I never said the government should legislate religion. I actually said they CAN'T.



Is it just me, or does this guy jump to a lot of conclusions about what I ACTUALLY said that are totally inaccurate and inappropriate?