Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

ANGRY:

You're forgetting the pols who stuff their pockets, and make rules to enrich their already rich donors.

99% is way off base!! People get social security based on what they paid into the system, like a savings account. I can tell you from personal experience that more than 1% of my pay went to social security. Conse 'Pubs say I shouldn't receive those funds, because it would rob their children. They, however, have no problem with me paying into it, or I should say they never mention it.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

You're forgetting the pols who stuff their pockets, and make rules to enrich their already rich donors.

99% is way off base!! People get social security based on what they paid into the system, like a savings account. I can tell you from personal experience that more than 1% of my pay went to social security. Conse 'Pubs say I shouldn't receive those funds, because it would rob their children. They, however, have no problem with me paying into it, or I should say they never mention it.

TAL

Most of the taxes paid in this country are from companies. They bear the hugest cost.

Do you honestly think that all the money that you paid for in Social Security is just sitting there waiting for you? No! It has already been spent by the Fed. otherwise you would be able to withdraw all you put in at once!

Here's some quick math that I thought of that pisses me off... Your take-home pay is decreased more than 12% due to your "contributions" to the social security system. That money of course, like any other ponzi scheme, is immediately sent from the Treasury to the mailbox of some random old person. It seems like a logical system to politicians, but the reason it's called a ponzi scheme is because current investors, who have an effective basis of $0, are kept afloat by new investors. When the new investors dry up, the current investors' bases of $0 are fully realized, and the system collapses. Madoff went to jail for this EXACT same thing, and the very politicians who favor expanding and taxing even more the social security contributions of individuals, are the same ones who were lambasting Madoff for running the very same operation they are! Hypocrites! Idiots!

The average American takes home a little over $40,000 per year. Without a Social Security tax, our incomes would be closer to $45,000. If we all used that extra $5,000 to invest in our Roth IRAs every year from our 20s onward, we could retire at 65-70 as MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Instead... we give that $5,000 to the federal government, which, of course, immediately disappears. But when we reach age for withdrawal, the average American receives $1,153 per month from Social Security. $13,836 per year. Assuming we live a very liberally estimated 25 years from the day we withdrawal benefits, that is a total of $345,900 nominal dollars over 25 years. Annual cost of living adjustments are made to the benefits, but the real purchasing power of those checks will remain about equivalent to what $345,900 would buy today.

On the flipside, those of us who opted to manage our own retirement, would wisely begin withdrawing (tax free, of course) funds from our Roth IRAs as soon as we hit 59.5 years old, ratably with the timing of the market at that time, and placing the withdrawals in safer investments like money markets, CDs, and low yield bonds. That way when we reach 65 or 70, or whatever age we decide we want to cruise around the world, we will have several hundred thousand dollars more than the social security folks. Oh, and the best part? We won't be paying income taxes on the adjusted principle of our withdrawals, the social security folks will be.

That being said, is our method of retirement a little riskier than social security which is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US government?" Yes it is, but high risk, high reward. And it's worth it to me to have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more disposable dollars at retirement. Some people may not be willing to go through with that, and may opt for something safe and low yield like social security, and that's fine. If we want to give them that option (rather than just allow individuals to invest that same money in equally safe investments via the private sector...), they can have that opportunity, but my gripe is, why do we all have to be forced to pay for it!? It all boils down to my gripe with the public option. If we want to be little leftists and have a public option, OK, but why will we all be forced to pay for it!?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

ANGRY:

You wrote that the govrmt. interfering is totalitarian, and destructive to liberty. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin say the exact same thing. You put yourself there, and I didn't imply that you agree with the other things they say.


TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

It's important because the opposition to FDR, Obama and govrmt. programs labels that as socialism.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

ANGRY:

I want to find out where you stand, because a lot of your points appear to be Libertarian: to the right of Neo-Cons.

TAL