Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest $iLk

Future of the DNC - A winning plan

Recommended Posts

Guest $iLk

quote:

A Solution for the Democrats

Dinesh DÔÇÖSouza

Friday, Nov. 8, 2002

Many on the political left are blaming the leadership of the Democratic Party for moving to the center, accommodating President BushÔÇÖs agenda, and thus producing the catastrophic losses of TuesdayÔÇÖs election. "Let us stop playing Republican wannabe,ÔÇØ these leftists say, "and start standing up for something.ÔÇØ

These critics are right. The Democrats could improve their political fortunes by unequivocally embracing the three central principles of the political left: anti-Americanism, economic piracy, and moral degeneracy.

At first glance, this may not seem like a winning political program. But consider: anti-Americanism is quite a popular notion these days. Lots of people hate America, and some of those people live in America. The anti-Americans blame American foreign policy for causing terrorism and other evils in the world. They detest American capitalism and American culture.

A newly assertive Democratic Party could embrace this anti-American vision. It could go beyond opposing President BushÔÇÖs Iraq policy to opposing all efforts to fight terrorism. Indeed it could declare America itself to be a terrorist country and seek to define all U.S. military action as "state-sponsored terrorism.ÔÇØ

How would such a policy be sustained politically? Of course it would not be enough to win the votes of America-haters in this country. It seems that there are many millions of America-haters in other countries, such as France, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen. The Democrats should encourage America-haters all over the world to become American citizens. Failing this, they should work to loosen eligibility requirements so that anti-American aliens could at least vote for Democratic candidates in presidential elections.

Second, the Democrats should openly advocate the economic looting of one class of citizens in order to benefit another class of citizens. Ordinarily this is called theft, but in politics it is called "redistributionÔÇØ or better still "compassion.ÔÇØ Again, in ordinary language people who are robbed are called "victims,ÔÇØ but in politics they are called "greedyÔÇØ for wanting to hold on to what is theirs.

Now it may seem that the Democratic Party has already perfected the art of using the government for the purpose of legal plunder. True, since the New Deal the Democrats have been the party of economic redistribution. By and large Democrats have shown no interest in how to create a pie; their sole focus has been on how to carve up the pie.

But Democrats in the past few decades have been hampered by the need to seem economically responsible, and thus the party has not embraced the left-wing program of blatantly seizing citizensÔÇÖ assets and earnings.

And It's All 'Free'!

Why stop with a measly prescription drug benefit for the elderly? The Democrats could abandon their past timidity and go for it all: free health care for seniors, unlimited scholarships for anyone who wants to go to college, no time limits on unemployment benefits, no work requirements for welfare, federal subsidies for aspiring artists to produce anti-Bush sculptures and songs, and so on.

This Democratic approach would be based on the political wisdom embodied in George Bernard ShawÔÇÖs maxim, "Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on PaulÔÇÖs support.ÔÇØ The secret, of course, is to make sure that the beneficiaries of this state-sponsored robbery (potential Democratic voters) outnumber those who are robbed (potential Republican voters).

Finally, the Democrats could become the party of moral degeneracy. In recent years the Democrats have not embraced moral degeneracy outright. They have contented themselves with hiding behind the slogan of "liberty.ÔÇØ If accused of encouraging pornography, the Democrats have said, "No, we are for liberty of expression.ÔÇØ Charged with supporting abortion-on-demand, the Democrats insist, "No, we are the party that gives women freedom over their own bodies.ÔÇØ Caught distributing sex kits and homosexual instruction manuals to young people, the Democrats protest, "We are merely attempting to give people autonomy and freedom of choice.ÔÇØ

But what is the need for this coyness? The Democrats should stop hiding behind "freedom of choiceÔÇØ and become blatant advocates for divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and pornography. Indeed the Democrats could become the Party of the Seven Deadly Sins. The political advantage of this approach is that the Seven Deadly Sins are immensely popular. Already the Democrats have a big advantage in winning the votes of divorced women and homosexuals. Imagine the political opportunities if all vices were associated with the Democratic Party!

Yes, right now President Bush and the Republicans are riding high. But just wait until 2004, when the party of fighting terrorism, promoting economic growth and fostering traditional moral values meets its match in a party that stands for anti-Americanism, economic plunder, and moral degeneracy.

Dinesh DÔÇÖSouza is the author of "Letters to a Young Conservative," just published by Basic Books. He is the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution. E-mail: [email protected]


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yep, DNC, GO LEFT, GO LEFT, commit political suicide so that we can get a TRUE center party in this country.

NOT the libertarians, I want to see the constitutionalist party come to the forefront, then we may see some REAL changes in this country. One of the parties has to die, and I would much rather it be the Dems, then the Republicans.

Now, the real reason that I wanted to post, this is a KILLER article, I LOVE MARK STIEN!!

quote:

Mark Steyn: Dubya does it his way

| 11/10/2002 | Mark Steyn

Well, if he is an "arrogant cowboy" he's got a lot more to be arrogant about. Within the space of 60 hours this week, George W Bush pulled off an amazing double, stacking up impressive victories in both the US elections and the UN Security Council. In both cases, Two-Gun Tex didn't have to fire a shot, merely stand back and let his opponents shoot themselves in the foot - or possibly a little higher up.

In the summer, Mr Bush said he didn't need congressional approval to go to war with Iraq. Congressional Democrats huffily insisted that he did. So Bush said fine, have a vote and let's see where you stand. Likewise, he said he didn't need the approval of the UN. The windbags of "the international community" huffily insisted that he did. So Bush said okay, you guys take a vote, too.

It's not just that Two-Gun Tex called their bluff but that he played them off against each other brilliantly, going to the UN just before the congressional vote to give the Democrats a little multilateral cover, and then whumping the Dems just before the UN vote to remind Chirac and co that, while he may be an arrogant swaggering moronic cowboy, there ain't gonna be a new sheriff in town for another six years.

So, after weeks of French obfuscation and veto preening, the Associated Press reported that "a breakthrough in negotiations came Thursday". Thursday, you say? Amazing. Wonder why that was.

Whether or not Mr Chirac intends to take the UN resolution seriously, Mr Bush expects him to. From New Hampshire to Florida to South Dakota, the President campaigned forcefully for Republican candidates on a handful of consistent themes: on the domestic front, making the $1.3 trillion tax-cut package permanent, and allowing workers to invest a portion of their social security taxes in the stock market; on national defence, establishing a real Homeland Security department; and on foreign policy, Iraq.

In other words: these are the things that will happen. When the President returns to New Hampshire in 2004, he'll be talking about something else, because the tax cuts will be permanent, the Homeland Security Department up and running, and Saddam and his four favourite lookalikes will be sharing a retirement condo over Robert Mugabe's garage. (Memo to the Butcher of Baghdad: that's a best-case scenario, by the way.)

After this week, it may be time for the President's disparagers to get some new insults. It's true there are a lot of dumb shoot-from-the-hip gunslingers on the right: I'm one myself - I wish he'd taken Baghdad in the spring, and told the UN to go screw 'emselves. But that's not the Bush style. He doesn't rush headlong into gunfights at the OK Corral, he corrals folks until they say they're OK about the gunfight: that's what he's done with Congress, and the American people and Blair and Putin and Chirac and the Chinese.

So I have the opposite problem with Mr Bush from The Guardian and Le Monde: because he's insufficiently trigger-happy, I underestimated him. When his judicial nominees were bottled up by Democrat obstructionist ideologues, I wanted him to do to Vermont Senator Pat Leahy what Clinton did to Newt Gingrich: destroy the guy. Instead, Bush looked at a handful of vulnerable Democrat Senate seats in Missouri, Minnesota and elsewhere, and slyly moved them into play.

The result is that the judiciary committee is now back in Republican hands, and Senator Leahy's got a one-way ticket on the oblivion express. Mr Bush has destroyed the guy without ever having to say a word about him. Meanwhile, all the states the Dems specifically targeted - from Florida to New Hampshire - are more Republican than ever. I was wrong. The Bush way is more effective.

In similar fashion, Mr Bush has chosen to disarm Saddam by first disarming the Democrats and then the international community. Now the hope of the Saddamite appeasers is that Iraq will submit to the UN sufficiently non-risibly to enable a new inspections regime to go through the motions and string things out until spring, at which point war will be impossible because US troops would be bogged down in the searing desert heat.

(The brutal Iraqi summer is this year's insurmountable meteorological obstacle, a worthy successor to the rapidly approaching horrors of "the brutal Afghan winter", which by my reckoning is currently 14 months behind schedule.) It won't happen. The deadlines in the resolution are a box not for the US but the UN: they effectively put an expiry date on the credibility of the "international community".

In Texas, in 1994, Bush was only the second Republican Governor in 130 years and pretty much the party's lone star in an overwhelmingly Democrat state. With Bush gone, the Texas Dems figured the natural order would be restored. Instead, on Tuesday they were trounced up and down the ticket: the Senator, Governor and Lieutenant-Governor are all Republican, the Grand Old Party strengthened its grip on the state Senate and took control of the House away from the Democrats for the first time since 1873.

That's to say, Bush effected real, long-term political change in Texas. On Tuesday, he did the same across America. In the next couple of months, he'll make it a hat-trick in Iraq.


I LOVE MARK STEIN!!!

Yeah, right, sure, PRESIDENT Bush is a trigger happy cowboy that doesn't have a clue. Uh, huh. sure thing, you guys on the left, just keep believing that. PLEASE keep believing that!!

And since I recieved no response on the other thread, has anyone noticed the trial balloon by the White House?

To dismantle the tax system and go to a sales/consumption tax? Now wouldn't that do the job of pulling in the horns of the feds?

I LIKE IT, I like it a LOT!!

[ 11-09-2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*slouches and thinks*

geez i'm surrounded by a bunch of trigger happy lunatics. Anyone can plainly see that the rebulicans stand the most to lose. If the economy and governmet is still messed up after their few years that they control all, they can't blame the democrats anymore. If anything goes wrong, it is their fault, and thiers alone. How many seats do you think they will win then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, Mark Stein doesn't seam so bad, but that Dinesh D'Souza article is some of the worst right wing propaganda I have seen posted here. Oh, it's nice enough to read (except for the bits I don't agree with), but it's so horribly blatant that I can't imagine anyone paying it that much heed. On the bright side, it isn't as long as the FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by J.Smith:

geez i'm surrounded by a bunch of trigger happy lunatics.

well they havent really confirmed my lunacy yet...

still seeing the docs on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Trigger happy lunatics? excuse me, now that offends me. When you decide to pull your head from your nether regions and look at the real world, we will talk.

The economy is getting better, DESPITE the Democrats being in control. Now that the Republicans are in control, things are only gonna get better. MUCH BETTER, taxes are going to come down and anyone dumb enough to attack us again, ARE DEAD, end of story.

Here are 2 more articles for this thread that I found interesting, Mark Stein is first of course, this guy is one of the most prolific writers that I have ever seen.

quote:

Dems Stuck on Yesterday

| November 10, 2002 | Mark Steyn

Mustn't gloat, mustn't gloat. Instead, we must try and look sober and reflective (think Winona as the verdict's read out) and then step smartly to the side and let the Democrats tear themselves apart.

I'm reluctant to intrude on family grief, especially as the Dems are doing such a sterling job all by themselves. But, when big shot Democrats look at Tusday's results and instantly announce the reason they flopped out was because they weren't left-wing enough, I'm inclined to think I've died and gone to Republican heaven. Hey, you liberals: We right-wing guys are supposed to be the Stupid Party, remember?

So, when Democrat chums tell me they'd have done better if they'd openly opposed the war and called for repeal of the tax cut, I try to nod in agreement without openly guffawing and spraying the decaf hazelnut latte all over their shirt fronts. "Oh, absolutely," I say. "If only you'd been more anti-war and pro-tax, those New Hampshire, North Carolina and Texas Senate seats would now be yours."

As to whom Democrats should turn to for a top-notch presidential candidate with a fresh face, I say you can't do better than Jim Jeffords, the celebrated Vermont Dairy Queen with the soft-serve principles. Alas even after Tuesday, we conservatives are unlikely to get that lucky. So, on the basis that there are Democrats genuinely interested in addressing what went wrong this week, here is one big thought, from the words of your own William Jefferson Clinton: It's time to move on.

By "moving on," I'm thinking of fellows like Al Gore. You can pretty much correlate the Democrats' worst results on Tuesday with Al's travel schedule during the campaign. Also Bill Clinton's, come to that. The polls had Bill McBride holding his own against Florida Gov. Jeb Bush until Bill and Al showed up to lend a hand. The same in Maryland, where Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was still the favorite until Al and Bill breezed into town to stump for her. And everywhere Al went he had a consistent message: This election isn't about the war or the economy, it's about me and "the disputed Florida vote two years ago." "Are you over it?" he roared at the crowds. "No!" they roared back.

Earth to Al: The rest of us are over it.

This is the Democrats' real defect. "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," sang Fleetwood Mac in Bill Clinto's '92 campaign. Ten years on, the Dems can't stop thinking about yesterday. For Al Gore, it's always Florida 2000 and his chads are dangling. For the National Organization for Women, it's always 1973 and Roe vs. Wade. For Jesse Jackson, it's always 1963 and Selma, Alabam'. Come election time, the Democrats sound like an oldies station with only three records.

Even in crude terms of "shoring up their base," the Dems feel clapped out: When Harry Belafonte has nothing to say about America's secretary of state and national security adviser other than that massa's been roun' the cottonfields and picked out a couple new house slaves, he's cranking out a tired refrain even older that his last hit. When elderly feminists run around warning "women" that their right to an abortion is a stake in this election, it's not just that it's untrue, it's that it's so lame and frankly sounds just plain loopy when North Korea has nukes and there's a Homeland Security bill ot pass. The National Organization for Women endorsed 18 candidates in this election: 15 lost.

We live in iteresting times, as the old Chinese curse has it, and the Dems have nothing interesting to say. In the midst of a great historical drama, they're still doing vaudevillian knockabout. On all the important issues, the Dems were profoundly unserious. And their complaint that the president's selfish obsession with national security, foreign policy and other trivialities was crowding out "the real issues" is a good example: Whatever the merits or otherwise of a "prescription drug plan for seniors," a great national party has to be more than a pharmacist-in-chief. The obsession with pill dispensing sounded weird in 2000, and just plain inadequate now. Late in the eveing, as the band at Missouri campaign HQ attempted to rouse the despondent crowd with Steve Allen's great song "This could Be the Start of Something Big," you couldn't help feeling that the Dems face the opposite problem: This could be the end of something small.

Whether the Democrats and their media cheerleaders understand this is doubtful. On the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, veteran Times bore R.W. ("Johnny") Apple Jr. turned in a masterpiece of patrician ennui in which the unprecendednted Republican achievements, from New Hampshire to Hawaii, were passed off as "lifeless" and "cheerless" and evidence of the public's "disenchantment and curious disconnection from the political system." I'd say they were evidence of the Times' discenchantment and curious disconnection from reality: Apple's "analysis" was almost as hilarious as his predictions of an almost Vietnam-style quagmire in Afghanistan a week before Kabul fell. But surely even a New York Times grandee should be able to make a reasonable stab at getting something right after it's happened.

As for the comforting talk of a nation still divided 50/50, UPI's Steve Sailer points out the nationwide spresd in the House races: Republicans 53.4 percent, Democrats 46.6 percent. That 6.8 percent edge could do a lot of damage. Sailer didn't factor in third-party votes, which also make for interesting reading: The Dems' net gain in the gubernatorial races was due to four states -- Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin -- where anti-tax Libertarian candidates siphoned off enough votes from the GOP to deliver the state to the Democrat. When a Dem runs on an explicit high-tax platform -- as the gubernatorial candidate did in New Hampshire, with her proposal to introduce an income tax -- voters abandon the Libertarians and come home to the Republicans. The proportion of voters philosophically antithetic to, say, a Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party is a notch or two higher than 53.4.

Meanwhile, the good news is there's a new star on the Democratic team: Jennifer Granholm, the telegenic new governor of Michigan. The bad news is she was born in British Columbia and thus ineligible to run for president.

Oh, well. Hillary's still available.


And Barbara Amiel

quote:

Bush's victory is the voice of an angry America

| November 11, 2002 | Barbara Amiel

When President Bush's spokesman announced on the morning after his tremendous election victory that the President would be saying nothing because "he thinks this is a time to be gracious", I wanted to reach for a brown paper bag. This was clever but too much treacle for me.

But American leaders often behave in ways that completely startle one. They have outpourings of unabashed spirituality or a personal relationship with the Almighty and it all seems to be quite genuine. President Carter asked forgiveness for lusting in his heart.

President Nixon asked Henry Kissinger to pray with him in the Lincoln bedroom, though Kissinger purports not to remember "whether I actually knelt" but did opt for a prayerful countenance. For all I know, President Bush, a committed Christian, may have truly been filled with the milk of human kindness that dictated he be "gracious" to all those vanquished opponents who called him stupid.

Graciousness aside, Americans still have teeth and they know how to use them, as this past election showed. In Georgia, the stern Republican contender for the Senate, a man named C Saxby Chambliss (a name ripe for use by novelist Tom Wolfe) warned his fellow Georgians to reject their Senator, Max Cleland, a triple amputee from the Vietnam war. "This man," said Chambliss, speaking of the legless one-armed combat veteran, "is soft on our nation's enemies."

The attack shocked many people but it is perfectly true that a war veteran and multiple amputee can easily (and understandably) be a dove on military policies. Cleland was not in favour of President Bush's Homeland Security Department. In the election that followed, C Saxby Chambliss defeated Senator Cleland.

In the post-election analysis, people who did not expect so decisive a Republican victory in both House and Senate placed emphasis on factors that seem to me beside the point. Bush's win, according to received wisdom, was due largely to: his great political strategist Karl Rove (The Times, the Financial Times), the fanning of fears about the war he alone wishes to wage (the Independent and the Guardian), "fix and gerrymandering" (Matthew Engel, the Guardian), and all of the above plus the lack of elaboration on their economic policies by the Democrats (the BBC).

Further, according to The Times's Peter Riddell, "the Republicans should not celebrate too much talk of a historic victory needs to be heavily qualified the margins are still very thin." The ethologist Konrad Lorenz would be more helpful than any of these experts.

America had a traumatic experience on September 11, 2001. The murder of 3,000 people cannot be easily forgotten. Americans are neither naive nor over-reacting, as some of the British like to say, snobbily pointing to their own sang-froid about the IRA, which, terrible though it is, has never come close to the horror of murdering 3,000 people in one go. When a nation has such a traumatic experience, it is natural to bond with whomever happens to be the leader at the time. "Imprinting" was what Lorenz called it.

Lorenz discovered that by being the first authority figure in the vision of newly born jackdaws and ducks, he could imprint himself for ever on their consciousness. The photos of Lorenz walking around his pond followed by the ducklings, who clearly viewed him as parent, sum up the role Bush now holds in the American consciousness.

This imprinting usually occurs only in the wild. In the case of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it happened in Manhattan. For George W Bush it took place on that crisis day in September when the fundamental instinct and need of Americans was for leadership. Bush was there. To break such a bond would require him to do something pretty awful.

The way our political analysts talk about the effect of 9/11 on the election result makes it sound as though the Republicans manufactured the post-9/11 fear to help their campaign, rather than that they understood that post-9/11 required different policies and priorities. The Democrats went into the election as if it were business as usual.

Senior members of the Democratic National Committee urged the need for another amnesty for illegal immigrants and reform of naturalisation bills. In the weeks leading up to the election the DNC website was still emphasising that the Homeland Security Bill should not be passed without first solving all the union problems of the civil servants involved.

But while America was evenly split ideologically both before and after the election, the sense that America was at real risk superseded everything with ordinary Americans. They were less concerned with the economy than with national survival; less concerned with union demands than the support of their leader's plan to fight the war against terror. How was it that professional politicians in the Democratic Party got it all so wrong and were so unprepared for the totality of Bush's victory?

To use another zoological metaphor, they were rather like mongooses. A mongoose crouched in the bushes can spot the tiny triangular head of a snake but might easily miss a steamroller. It is attuned to look for danger from that small shape but doesn't have the field of vision for bigger threats. Similarly, the reality of war as a threat to America has simply not been a part of the post-war Democratic vision.

Electors may vote according to special interests such as gun control or the environment, or follow naked self-interest by demanding, for example, farm subsidies or higher wages to government employees. These groups are hard to dislodge. But there is a small group who often vote for different parties, and actually try to decide what is best for the country at a given moment. That group can swing an election. Those Americans did not feel that the immediacy of the 9/11 threat had passed and in the face of the remaining threat, they felt more secure with Republicans than with Democrats.

Each post-election day now brings a fresh analysis from the Democrats. They blame their defeat on poor leadership, their lack of clarity on economic issues. California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the star progressive of the liberal Left, has thrown her hat into the ring as future Minority Leader so that the party can move "back to its progressive roots". The Democrats are in a fog. They simply don't get it.

One can't really blame them. Democrats will fight for their country as hard as Republicans, but it is easier to recognise a threat that is in tune with your world view than one that isn't. Republicans might dismiss some environmental threat more easily than Democrats. Democrats might be more in tune with racial tensions than Republicans because they are watching out for such matters.

The notion of nations or fundamentalist groups hating America and trying to destroy it is deeply alien to the small "l" liberal Democrat. Democrats have their own notion of how the world works and being hated for being kind, generous and tolerant is not on their radar.

As for the notion now doing the rounds that the actual win of the Republicans was very narrow, this is not untrue but it is probably the most meaningless thing you can say. The difference between the gold medal and the silver is probably about 2/100th of a second but the consequences are light years apart. Any gain by the party in power in an interim election is astonishing.

All observers from Right to Left agree that the decisive factor in this election was Bush's campaigning, which strengthens his hand considerably. Finally, no matter how "narrow" the Senate win may be, Republicans will now have control of the committees and the President will be able to make his judicial appointments. Though 60 per cent of the Senate is needed to stop a filibuster, judicial appointments are almost never the subject of filibusters.

Americans are not natural conquerors, occupiers or even war-makers. But when they feel their national interest is threatened, they are as dangerous as a rattlesnake just stepped on. Once before, in 1941, the Japanese underestimated America aroused. This time, the world seems determined to underestimate the threat America faces.

I suppose everyone takes everyone else's pain in his stride; it's human nature. But what the world should remember is that all Americans were wounded on September 11, 2001, and wounded beings can be dangerous - even when they are generous, liberal, Yankee democrats. Ultimately, this election is the voice of the American people, telling the world of a great nation's anger and determination to punish its enemies, to pull together behind their President and to prevail.


GOtta LOVE IT!!! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The economy is getting better, DESPITE the Democrats being in control. Now that the Republicans are in control, things are only gonna get better. MUCH BETTER, taxes are going to come down and anyone dumb enough to attack us again, ARE DEAD, end of story.

much better? last trend i saw Republicans(thats a foul word) have was they get us into a conflict and our economy drops. i hate democrats just as much but they at least dont piss off half the world.

yeah taxes will go down, but they are doing it for themselves not us unrich ppl. it means they pay less. also how we gonna fund all of our stupid expences? america already cant budget worth a damn.

and if the terrorist make a sucessful attack they obviously arent dumb, we are the dumb ones for not stoping it or leaving them alone in the first place. and how many will die in america before we retaliate? the US wants to rule the world, and terrorist wont sit down and take it so we kill them. sounds a lot like Israel, Germany, Somalia, and every other country that killed another cause they didnt like them. they say america is the land of the free, free what @$$ beating? semms alot like America is the Germany of the new millenium. with our we want it all mentality.

theres a thing called tolerance, u HAVE to tolerate the different cultures, beliefs, ideas, and people. im not saying u havta like them, but respect and tolerate them.

sadly i predict america will fall one day or get a really rude awakening, im not saying id do anything to the US, just makin sure u dont think i hate my country. its just i dont care for the leaders, but i tolerate them. its not like my vote will keep them outa office. and usually the other choice is just as bad

[ 11-11-2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Enigma ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Enigma, I turned 18 the day after you were born, tells me where our education system has gone in the last 20 years.

Lower taxes increase revenues, or have you never heard that?

It's true, the fact of the matter is that all these wonderful social programs we have that cost us so much money and are unconstitutional by the way, were ALL brought about by Democrats. The Democrats have destroyed this country, and it is up to Republicans and constitutionalists to straighten out the mess.

THe democrats have always believed in incrementalism, and that is what the republicans are going to have to do. Incrementally tear these programs down and either privatize them, or just get rid of them. It will take another 50 years to do this. Hopefully the Democrat party will tear itself apart, as it has been doing and another major party can come to the forefront, namely the constitutionalist party.

We did NOT start this war, THEY did. Sure they can be pissed off at us, that's just fine, but as soon as they attacked us, they signed their own death warrant.

They wanna be pissed and tell us to piss off or whatever, they can go to their respective governments and get them to do it, but the fact is that they are NOT a majority in their countries and therefore move to terrorism in order to make the majority fall into thier line.

Your tolerance is nice, but this is the real world, and you cannot be tolerant of those that attack you, NEVER, because they will attack you harder. Show weakness, and you are dead.

I still believe in the old saying, if you are not a liberal between 18 and 30, you have no heart, if you are not conservative between 30 and your death, you have no brains.

you have 12 years to go to get some sense knocked into you, along with a few others on this forum.

Once you start making REAL money, and really enjoying life, you WILL become conservative, because it is the only way to keep what you earn, it is the only way to actually TAKE responsibility for your life instead of blaming "the rich" or whatever for your problems.

Personal responsibility What a concept.

[ 11-11-2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate politics so i'm just gonna leave this. From all the studies that i have seen and from my own personal experiance, that America usually comes out the worst for wear when republicans are in control, don't get me wrong most of our military is republican, (i am one of the exceptions to that)almost evertime we have a republican in office we have some sort of conflict. You can praise the GOP all you want, but don't try and pull me along

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

much better? last trend i saw Republicans(thats a foul word) have was they get us into a conflict and our economy drops. i hate democrats just as much but they at least dont piss off half the world.

Right, and this is just before you start gabbing about tolerance?

quote:

yeah taxes will go down, but they are doing it for themselves not us unrich ppl. it means they pay less. also how we gonna fund all of our stupid expences? america already cant budget worth a damn.

Well, I for one can think of a number of ways to reduce spending.

quote:

and if the terrorist make a sucessful attack they obviously arent dumb, we are the dumb ones for not stoping it or leaving them alone in the first place. and how many will die in america before we retaliate? the US wants to rule the world, and terrorist wont sit down and take it so we kill them.

Well darling, if they attack us, or even threten to attack us, then they forfit any right to live, end of story.

quote:

sounds a lot like Israel, Germany, Somalia, and every other country that killed another cause they didnt like them. they say america is the land of the free, free what @$$ beating? semms alot like America is the Germany of the new millenium. with our we want it all mentality.

Hardly, we're powerful and our government uses that power for our benefit, as it should, this is a lot different from raw conquest. Besides, in matters of life and death there is no room for half measures.

quote:

theres a thing called tolerance, u HAVE to tolerate the different cultures, beliefs, ideas, and people. im not saying u havta like them, but respect and tolerate them.

Tolerance? TOLERANCE???

Are you completely off your rocker? We are suppose to tolerate countries that pose direct threats to us, that support terrorism which results in thousands of American deaths, that would wipe us from the face of the earth if they could? It's not there belief, or there culture, or even there bad sense of fashion, we can tolerate all of that just fine, but murder of American citizens is absolutely unacceptable, end of story.

quote:

I still believe in the old saying, if you are not a liberal between 18 and 30, you have no heart, if you are not conservative between 30 and your death, you have no brains.

I rather disagree, I have a heart, it's just rather cold and perhaps a bit black, but I do have one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaguar, our school system had nothing to do with how i think, but ill agree schools have gone downhill. and i enjoy life regardless of my money levels. if i was rich or poor id still feel they way i do, y, cause i dont believe everything im fed in life as being the golden truth

and i know for a fact iv got a heart, and also more brains than a lot of ppl

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Well darling, if they attack us, or even threten to attack us, then they forfit any right to live, end of story.

Hardly, we're powerful and our government uses that power for our benefit, as it should, this is a lot different from raw conquest. Besides, in matters of life and death there is no room for half measures.

Are you completely off your rocker? We are suppose to tolerate countries that pose direct threats to us, that support terrorism which results in thousands of American deaths, that would wipe us from the face of the earth if they could? It's not there belief, or there culture, or even there bad sense of fashion, we can tolerate all of that just fine, but murder of American citizens is absolutely unacceptable, end of story.

so its ok for us to threaten or do other evils to them first and they are just responding to that? COOL!, ill havta remeber that. uv helped me understand how REALLY f****d up the US is. "'Dont do unto us, but we can do unto you.' author USA" new quote by me

i havent seen any benefit, maybe im too young to know. but i know the last few 'wars' havent been worth squat, gulf, vietnam, korea. iv got friends/family whos served in each and have all said they were BS

seeking as how i dont have a rocker, most likley i am. so is murder of arabics or other nations that so call 'support' terrorism more to the liking of ur plalette? murder isnt candy coated cause the US does it

ppl are all quick to cry we got hit and americans died. what about their familes getting killed by us? huh, u all get mad at me cause im not like kill them all now. hey jaguar u say i dont have brains or a heart, i have 2 things u dont have. its called common sense and compassion (my brain has the former and my heart has the latter)

[ 11-11-2002, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Enigma ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

so its ok for us to threaten or do other evils to them first and they are just responding to that? COOL!, ill havta remeber that. uv helped me understand how REALLY f****d up the US is. "'Dont do unto us, but we can do unto you.' author USA" new quote by me

Darling, if they're threatening us then yes, we can do whatever we bloody well please to them so long as we can justify it as an aspect of self defense (well, actually I would say that we could do whatever we please to them anyway, but that?s a different argument entirely).

quote:

i havent seen any benefit, maybe im too young to know. but i know the last few 'wars' havent been worth squat, gulf, vietnam, korea. iv got friends/family whos served in each and have all said they were BS

Yea, so you're saying that vets know best about whether a war was effective or BS as you put it? That's nonsense.

quote:

seeking as how i dont have a rocker, most likley i am. so is murder of arabics or other nations that so call 'support' terrorism more to the liking of ur plalette? murder isnt candy coated cause the US does it

I couldn't care less about murder, so no, the deaths of enemy military personnel (or civilians for that matter) doesn't bother me in the least. It's called expediency, ruthlessness, and, ultimately, success.

quote:

ppl are all quick to cry we got hit and americans died. what about their familes getting killed by us? huh, u all get mad at me cause im not like kill them all now. hey jaguar u say i dont have brains or a heart, i have 2 things u dont have. its called common sense and compassion (my brain has the former and my heart has the latter)

I, for one, am not mad, and if I sound otherwise it's because this debate is fairly heated. I do, however, think you are more then a little foolish to advocate the position you do. As for common sense and compassion, well, I have plenty of common sense and one thing it tells me is I don't need much in the way of compassion, it's a liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

i havent seen any benefit, maybe im too young to know. but i know the last few 'wars' havent been worth squat, gulf, vietnam, korea. iv got friends/family whos served in each and have all said they were BS


How fascinating, I have freinds that were in all of them and said the EXACT opposite.

I guess that we should allow oppression and communism to spread and tolerate it when they kill hundred of thousands of people and not do anything about it? Is that right?

I see, so when Hitler tried to take over Europe, we should have let him, when Japan hit Pearl Harbor we should have said, oh, we deserved that, OK Japan, go ahead do whatever you need to do, we'll leave you alone, lesson learned? Is that what we should have done?

When North Korea decided that it wanted South Korea, who were our allies, we should have let them? Or when the Chinese used their proxies that Viet Cong to take over Vietnam, we should have just walked away?

When Reagan came to office he should have pussy footed around the USSR, and told them what great people they were for the oppression and terrible treatment they gave their citizens?

When Saddam decided to take over Kuwait and killed and raped hundreds of thousands of Kuwaiti citizens. we should have said that's OK, might makes right, so you had the might to take over the country, so you have the right to keep it and kill all those people, control 30% of the oil in the region, and continue to be emboldened to take the rest of the middle east at your liesure.

Right, sure thing dude, you need to read history, you need to look at the BIG picture.

I am so glad out forefather did not think like you, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now, instead of being the Sole superpower in the world.

You poor liberals, all emotion, no logic. No facts, just emotion, but people will die you cry, we hurt other countries by protecting our interests, so we deserved it. Wah, boo hoo, well so sorry, the facts and logixc state that the world has to be watched and we have to get involved for our own security. If you do not understand that, you do not understand politics nor international relations.

Time for you to learn, and when I said no heart or no brains, it was a quote by Winston Churchill, not an attack on you. Some people just do not get it, they emote, instead of think, MOST if not all of them are Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I agree with you, but I'd still like to make some comments.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

When Saddam decided to take over Kuwait and killed and raped hundreds of thousands of Kuwaiti citizens. we should have said that's OK, might makes right, so you had the might to take over the country, so you have the right to keep it and kill all those people,...

But when Saddam decided to wage war against Iran the west (I don't think it was the US alone) was quite happy to fund him and sell him weapons.

quote:

...control 30% of the oil in the region, and continue to be emboldened to take the rest of the middle east at your liesure.

That really seems to bug US leadership, doesn't it? Anyway I prefer such a large amount of oil to be under safe (US) control, as long as you guys let the others have a piece of the pie. This would greatly reduce the west's dependence on Saudi oil, which possibly will make them think twice about funding terrorits and fundie schools abroad while playing friends with the US.

quote:

Right, sure thing dude, you need to read history, you need to look at the BIG picture.

The bigger the big picture is, the farther away you have to stand to see it completely. Maybe listening to other countries' opinion from time to time would do the US some good. Actually I'm glad that Bush's resolution passed UN security council 15:0. Even if that doesn't make a big difference to Americans it does to others. In the eyes of the other countries it gives you legitimtion for your actions.

quote:

I am so glad out forefather did not think like you, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now, instead of being the Sole superpower in the world.

In other words WWII/cold war were justified because you came out of it as the world's sole super power? As you said, might makes right, that is the rule of Realpolitik.

What's wrong with speaking German anyway? I do it and IIRC there are a great many Americans with German heritage. Hey, just kidding.

quote:

You poor liberals, all emotion, no logic. No facts, just emotion, but people will die you cry, we hurt other countries by protecting our interests, so we deserved it. Wah, boo hoo, well so sorry, the facts and logixc state that the world has to be watched and we have to get involved for our own security. If you do not understand that, you do not understand politics nor international relations.

I wouldn't call it "deserve it" but aggressively promoting your interests abroad can backlash on you.

I know about international relations. It's summed up in the following short sentences. "Diplomats are people who are sent abroad to lie for their countries' best interests." "Diplomats are people who can say 'go to hell' in a way that you look forward to the trip."

quote:

Time for you to learn, and when I said no heart or no brains, it was a quote by Winston Churchill, not an attack on you. Some people just do not get it, they emote, instead of think, MOST if not all of them are Democrats.

My grandpa likes that quote very much.

Speaking about emotional reactions, democrats/liberals aren't the only ones to react emotionally to certain subjects. I've had more than one discussion with conservatives about economics, politics and religion and some of them were quite emotional people (especially when they ran out of rational arguments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I like this guy! And Dinish D'souza is a racist. I've read a number of works and IMO he is so full of self hatred due to his heritage that he borders on self parody.

And I agree with the trigger happy part but with the exception of Grayfox who I know to be a lunatic, the other guys are just misinformed and lacking in compassion.

I agree that the Dems have to stop being wannabe

repubs but I disagree wiyh the conclusion that we imbrace anti americanism and pro terrorism.

Jag , $ilk do you think I'm unAmerican just cause we disagree? As it was so eloquently poited out to me by Paddy Gregory your love of country is what drives you and I am no different in that respect.

PS. Fox isn't really a lunatic.. he just plays one on tv (sorry bud)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't think that your unamerican, it's just that your picture of America is Not our founding fathers picture of America. I think that your picture of America is a cross between the Soviet Union and Canada. Both have failed miserably.

The Soviet Union is dead, and Canada is broke.

Free enterprise and capitalism are the only way this country will survive, and socialism and capitalism DO NOT MIX. Like oil and water baby, like oil and water.

THe only way this country will be saved from destruction is to get rid of the socialist do gooder programs, and get back to the real constitution. California is experimenting with your kind of government right now, and it is broke, the people are just angry, and are taxed into oblivion. I don't care for that thank you.

I can be as giving as the next person, but I would like to do it freely, not by the government sticking a gun to my head and it's hand in my wallet, and forcing me to.

That is your idea of America, the federal government TAKING my money, and giving it to those less fortunate, and in between taking around 90% for doing it.

Your ideas and programs DON'T work, they have been tried for the last 50 years. What have we gotten in return.

We have more poor then when we started with, Health care costs are through the roof I have far less money in my wallet then there was when we started and so many other things that have backfired, things that were supposed to go away with those programs have instead grown. IT DOES NOT WORK!!! NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL...

If you came up to me and put a gun to my head, took money out of my wallet, and then gave it to someone less fortunate then me, you would be arrested, the government is doing the same thing and calling it welfare. This is NOT criminal?

I have loads of heart for those less fortunate then myself. I invite my friends who are down and out to come stay with me as they get themselves back on thier feet, I help them out, I feed them, put a roof over there head and tell them, you have 8 weeks my friend, if you haven't gotten it together by then, you need to find another place to live. That is true friendship, getting him off his butt and working so that he can help himself.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life. We are giving out a lot of fish, and it ain't working. All it's doing is taking money out of my wallet that would feed and clothe and educate my children. Instead it is supporting some low life that wants to sit on his ass and watch TV all day because the government is feeding him, and clothing him, and paying his medical care.

You think I'm angry, DAMN straight I'm angry, I live paycheck to paycheck because the government takes 40% of my pay. I could live very well if I actually got to keep what I earn.

Your programs Don't work, you may think it's fine, but it is going to financially destroy this country, and my family is going to go down with it.

Thanks Liberals, then I will be forced onto those same government plans that the government provides, then we will go broke even faster. It's a train wreck just waiting to happen and it is speeding along the track at full throttle, and unless someone can get to the engine and put on the brakes, I am talking conservatives here, then we are going on the express track to destruction.

The sooner the socialist party(Democrats) implode the better off we will be. And I love watching it, because it means that maybe, just maybe we will be able to save this country from destruction.

[ 11-11-2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by J.Smith:

neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted.

finally another person who knows the truth. Thank You!

does anyone know what Communism REALLY is? not the Stalin BS weve been tought? Communism is a good govt style, but man and woman makes it corrupt and ruins it for the population. and if u know ur history, ud know the US had a communist party that was close to bring communism to the US. so dont try to act like our own country never wanted it

Jag im not saying america shouldnt have stoped hitler or sadam in 91, i was all for sadam gettin wasted back then, but why were we still over there? the job was job and the mission failed. got the oil, missed sadam. i understand going back, and i dont want him to have nukes either. iv read my history, and it wasnt the lies they teach in school. like Starfighter08 said, the US supplies or has supplied alot of our enemies. that should tell u how messed up we are.

Dragonlady, ask those same vets would they rather die from an enemy bullet while serving the US or die from drugs, chemicals and untested poisons, err um i mean vaccinations from our own govt? they were given numerous injections, a lot of which they had no idea what they did. the reports are slowly being release stating how our own govt (the ppl we elected to PROTECT us) has done testing on the military and civilians. if u like it so damn much, go volunteer urself so i dont have to be an unwilling particapant. so yeah lets run around rooting for our own killers. GO USA! GO USA! I WANNA DIE TODAY! GIMME MY DEADLY SHOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted.

Perhaps so, but it's what we have so we might as well make the best of it.

quote:

does anyone know what Communism REALLY is? not the Stalin BS weve been tought? Communism is a good govt style, but man and woman makes it corrupt and ruins it for the population. and if u know ur history, ud know the US had a communist party that was close to bring communism to the US. so dont try to act like our own country never wanted it

Actually, I do know what communism is, and I know for a fact that the idea of communism is very appealing to the mob, but that neither makes it best for our country nor even a valid system should it be free of corruption.

quote:

Dragonlady, ask those same vets would they rather die from an enemy bullet while serving the US or die from drugs, chemicals and untested poisons, err um i mean vaccinations from our own govt? they were given numerous injections, a lot of which they had no idea what they did. the reports are slowly being release stating how our own govt (the ppl we elected to PROTECT us) has done testing on the military and civilians. if u like it so damn much, go volunteer urself so i dont have to be an unwilling particapant. so yeah lets run around rooting for our own killers. GO USA! GO USA! I WANNA DIE TODAY! GIMME MY DEADLY SHOT!

That's rude darling, I never even mentioned the government doing testing on the military and suggesting that I did is something of an insult. There are a number of obvious reasons not to test drugs on military personnel like that, and while I don't have any moral objection to the process, it doesn't really seam the thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

EP5,

Time for you to look a little closer, your universal health care is about go bankrupt.

It has maybe a decade of life, if you want to call it life. Canada is going to have to figure out something or else it will be totally bankrupt.

You need to read a bit about it, because it's true.

Canada is broke, and there are still doctors running south to the US, to get away from your healthcare system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah Jag and our heath care is doing so much better.....one out of five Americans doesn't even have any, (good solution) plus costs are soaring....and what is happening to social security....what social security? Exactly.

Oh yes....any socialist idea's must be "evil" and "anti-American"....so says corporate funded "think tanks".....and their blathering choir of idiots on CNN and FOX with the rest of the mass media that is ultimately owned by the same parent companies....you spoke once of sheeple didn't you?

The Soviet economy was state controlled capitalism...American mainstream thought has always lied about that....there was always a profit motive...their media was state controlled....our media is "private" owned and state regulated....they had one party....we have "two"....dominated by centrist policy makers who owe their elections to the same "private" media owners and corporate donors who put them in there.a circle of money and BS.

At least the Soviets were honest in their deception.

Anti-Americanism and the left is linked by radicals during Vietnam.....I don't think burning an American flag will ultimately serve the nation but I am more concerned about the people's right to do just that...if in the end it serves to wake up "sleepy land" to a nightmare of death and destruction....so be it.

I think we would all agree that Vietnam was a tragic and foolish mistake. Those radicals did this country a favor and anyone who denies that is full of crap.

Right radicals have clashed with the feds more dramatically then the left in recent years.....because they absolutely will not be tread upon....I'm not too familiar with ideological positions but at least they understand the gravity of situation......they don't burn flags because theyÔÇÖve picked up a new one....I'm not buying that un-American left crap so lets move on and seek to understand the real threats to liberty and freedom.

[ 11-12-2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Oh yeah Jag and our heath care is doing so much better.....one out of five Americans doesn't even have any, (good solution) plus costs are soaring....and what is happening to social security....what social security? Exactly.


Do you know why health care costs in this country are so high? Do you have any idea?

I'll tell you, healthcare used to be VERY inexpensive, competition drove the price down and the service high. Then the government decided that they wanted to give health insurance to those that didn't have it. Medicare and medicaid came into existence.

The insurance companies looked as this as the golden goose. Charge whatever you want because the government has bottomless purses. Problem was that if you charge the government that much, then you had better charge everyone else the same.

It has been a disaster ever since. If the government would get out of the healthcare insurance industry and let it go back to what it was, we would have competition again and costs would come down so fast it would make your head spin.

The problem with government provided health care is that the people think it's free, when something is free, what do you do? YOU USE IT!!

So many people have abused the system because it is free that the costs have outweighed everything else. The people on medicare, medicaid and other government programs, use the healthcare system 5 to 1. Therefore the costs skyrocket and we all get raped.

When I was a kid, my mother payed $25 a month out of her pocket for my healthcare, she payed privately, NO employer benefit, I now pay over $100 for each of my children, that is 400% increase over the last 20 years, and my helathcare for my children is about 50% of what mine was. That is with a $25 co pay.

It is DIRECTLY attributable to the feds getting involved in FREE healthcare for the poor.

Get them out of it and you will see REAL competition DRIVE the costs down.

quote:

The Soviet economy was state controlled capitalism

That statement is so silly it doesn't even deserve a response.

The rest of your post? SAME SAME.

So silly that it does NOT deserve any type of reply.

Same old socialist propaganda and BS.

Yeah, we're in trouble, why? Because the constitution is ignored, the federal government has grown WAY beyond what the founders intended. The general welfare clause has been perverted into something it is not, the interstate commerce law has been perverted into something that it is not, etc etc ad nauseum.

We DO NOT have the same government that we had before the civil war, but if we did, we would ALL be a lot richer, and a lot better off.

No, I do NOT like the government that we have now, but I will vote republican because they are the lesser of 2 evils, at least the government will not grow as quickly with them.

All this conspiracy and rich man classwarfare crap you toss around is a crock of crap.

I've NEVER gotten a job from a poor man, have you?

Here is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

Poor man, woman, child,(stick whatever in here, no job, no healthcare, no food, no roof over his head etc.

Liberal solution. Here, let me take care of that for you. Here's your government provided healtcare, here's your food stamps, here's your section 8 to put you in a run down piee of garbage ghetto that I would never live in, oh and here's an unemployment check for you too, oh, you have kids, well here's some welfare there too. Nah, take it, live, be happy. WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU

Conservative solution. Here's a little to get you by, in the meantime what would you like to do? Job training, here ya go, you are now trained to do work, now let's help you find a job so you can move out of that government rat hole, health insurance, well we gave it to you when you needed it, but you are now self sufficient, you can afford to pay for your health insurance now. Food, you no longer need food stamps, you can now afford steaks. YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF NOW!!!

Liberals want to take responsibility for you, they want power over you.

Conservatives want you to be responsible for yourself, we'll help until you can get on your feet, but we WILL NOT be responsible for you indefinitely. We don't want power over you, we want you to have power over yourself.

It's ALL about power over the individual, conservatives don't want it, liberals do.

I realized that I never responded to your social security statement up there. I will respond with this instead.

quote:

Who is protecting our social security?

Subject: Social Security

Non believers, Check it out...It's 100 percent true.....

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants? A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI Social Security. TheDemocratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, you believe it!

Pass it on please!

SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our

Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it (or do they? Hummm). Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. Many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes Their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan.

The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds--our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into--every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)--we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (l) month to equal Bradley's (Senator) benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. And that change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us and then watch how fast they would fix it.


There, is that better? We may actually agree on this ponzi scheme, not sure, but I will find out, huh Lotharr?

[ 11-12-2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

We DO NOT have the same government that we had before the civil war, but if we did, we would ALL be a lot richer, and a lot better off.

ur just sad man. thats statement has racism written all over it. and no im not calling u a racist or playing the race card. our govt, before the Civil War allowed slaves and went off THIER hard work and (free)labor to build this nation and make the white plantation owners rich. yeah i really wanna have that govt back.

also u said Lotharr's post was BS, y is it cause he was right? truth seems to be painful dont it

Q: who got us into the last 5 or so military conflicts?

A: republicans, ecomonmies can be resurrected, lives cant

and dragonlady, i never expressed or implied that u mentioned it. i just stated that since u said know vets who thought we benifited, just askin how is further corruption and untrustworthyness worth protecting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Charge whatever you want because the government has bottomless purses

That's why here we have fixed prices. You cannot charge what you want if you are affiliated with the RAMQ*. If you aren't, then you can charge anything you want, since the government won't pay a dime.

*R├®gime d'Assurance Maladie du Qu├®bec - forgot what's the english equivalent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×