My Theory On Why Bush wants to Ruin Social Security

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 13307
PAGE 3 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:09 AM

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.

PIRATEJENNY

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:16 AM

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

PIRATEJENNY

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:36 AM

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

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:30 PM

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.

BYTETHEBULLET

Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:35 PM

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 (-:

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:44 PM

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.

HERO

Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:21 PM

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

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:40 PM

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.

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:44 PM

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.

HERO

Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:01 PM

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE