OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:42:28 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I think a _mandatory_ percentage of your income going into some kind of
retirement plan is wise, otherwise most people won't save anything until
they're suddenly _there_.

Do you honestly believe, in your heart, that there is any justification,
any rationalization, any excuse - for mandatory, institutionalized theft?

Do you really think that it's right that the ruling class should live
off the fruits of the labor of others?

If so, then you are nothing but a thief and a scoundrel, and you do not
deserve to lick dog shit from the sole of my shoe.

I wish that your death be as prolonged, painful, humiliating, and
expensive as can be arranged within reality as we know it.

Fuck you to death, Ahriman/Lucifer/ASURA.

Love,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[Bob Monsen]

You sure have alot of time on your hands...

You obviously know the law far better than I. It's clear that the supreme
court would take care to follow the law. Trying to prove that what they
did wasn't legal is apparently a rathole, and I'm obviously not skilled
enough, nor energetic enough, to continue exploring it with you. However,
they didn't need to step into this matter, as is shown by the various
minority arguments arguing against doing so, and the suprise that their
doing so generated in the media and legal community. There is also
compelling evidence that the 5 (and possibly the minority 4) were acting
out of partisan interests; this is clear from the Vanity Fair article.

I'll give you that it was all 'legal'. You win. Bush can still be
president.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comast.net>
wrote (in <pan.2005.04.12.20.34.05.163650@comast.net&gt about 'OT: Civil
War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 12 Apr 2005:

I'll give you that it was all 'legal'. You win. Bush can still be
president.

Now that the duologue has subsided, consider the decision of Democrat
senators not to support pursuit of the matter. Maybe you could even ask
one why, and maybe he/she would tell you. Maybe not.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

The *only* way out of the DemonRat's (going back to FDR)
is to *privatize* retirement. Sure it's going to cost perhaps a
terabuk, but the alternative is even worse.

The cost is 2.2 Trillion in the next 4 years and about 5 in the 15 there
after. The "Bush plan" will burden the next generation with that added
debt and that is all it will do.

Those who don't like taxes should also not like the government forcing
you to invest money in a limitted number for government things and then
calling that money "yours". If you have no control over what is done
with the money can you really say it is "yours"" They also claim that
"it can't be taken away from you". In the past the US government took
all the gold from its people. They owned the gold up to the day the
government said "we'll take that". There is nothing preventing part or
all of this money from being taken away from you by some new invented
tax rule. Since the government will be in debt up to its eyeballs, it
is likely to happen too.

The solution is not privatizing, nor is it "shoring up" the existing
program. The cure is one that we won't ever see. Social Security must go
away, completely, and totally. Americans must be made to see that they are
going to have to be responsible for their own lives, and their own
retirement.

The damage that SS does to this country cannot be calculated. It enslaves
us, it empowers politicians to reign over us, and it is the tool by which
we are being taken apart, brick by brick.

What surprises me most is that the lawyers have wielded this big stick
over American retirement for so long, to their lasting benefit, that I am
amazed they have not gotten together and decided that since not enough of
us are saving for our children's college educations, they have chosen to
create educational security, and they will be taking 10% of our salaries,
and "investing" it in our children's extended education. Soon to be
followed by the "you are not feeding and clothing your children correctly"
funding, and you can see where all that could lead. I am shocked this has
not come up.

Until we stop allowing them to babysit us, we have no choices, and given
that they do not even use social security in the first place, it should be
apparent to even the most stupid among us, that it is not ever going to
become solvent, cured, fixed, or otherwise anything more than a political
hammer to grind us into the dust.

Arguing about the best way to fix it is just stupid, and accomplishes
nothing, as it does not need to be fixed, it needs to go away.

JB

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <pan.2005.04.13.18.47.49.445034@comast.net>,
rcsurname@comast.net says...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:52:10 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comast.net
wrote (in <pan.2005.04.12.20.34.05.163650@comast.net&gt about 'OT: Civil
War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 12 Apr 2005:

I'll give you that it was all 'legal'. You win. Bush can still be
president.

Now that the duologue has subsided, consider the decision of Democrat
senators not to support pursuit of the matter. Maybe you could even ask
one why, and maybe he/she would tell you. Maybe not.

Gore conceded after the supreme court decision.

Sure, when it was clear that the FSC wasn't going to be allowed to
subvert the Constitution. Clearly the Congress wasn't about to.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Black-Protest-Bush-Victory.htm

--
Keith