Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

The Fall of the Republic - 10-21-2009

Correct, there is no way to not pay in, hence I wasn't arguing against that point.

The above quote though..... That is my point. Everyone is on here saying how much BS all these programs are, but yet most are drawing from them? So how does the cycle ever stop?

Look at Wolfruns attitude. He said it himself, he thinks he is entitled to that amount of money.... because he paid into it... So how do you end that program then? Someone is going to get the shaft, it doesn't sound like he will accept it being him, nor would most, I assume, in his position.

The only ones that seem to oppose it, are the ones not getting any benefit from it.

and yes, it would be poetic justice, blowing up the people that paid and are paying into the system for you to take money out of the system... :rolleyes:

Though, better would be using your money to pay for someone elses SS costs.. That one might actually make a positive difference.

I find it interesting that despite the many different attitudes on here, they are all deemed acceptable as long as the person is viewed as "one of the guys", a republican, a conservative..... How about some consistency?

You miss my point. Your looking at this all backwards. You are going to have to bankrupt this country to stop paying it, that's the only way it will ever happen. All good socialist entitlement programs work off of people's expectations. Everyone over 50 is looking forward to the checks, they are a powerful political force, and will not be denied their "investments". It's a socialist poisoned pill This is exactly why I believe socialism hurts more than it helps.

The only way Social Security could have every been fixed, was the day it was created. They should have never created the stupid thing in the first place. Think about it, some bleeding heart socialist wanted to "help" people today. So, he created a program, that took from many, and promised them a return, and welfared others in. Then another group of socialist came along 30 years later, and stole the money, and promised to pay it back. Now, there's not enough people paying in, to keep the promises. And, the money's gone.

So, that original socialist that wanted to "help" some people, may end up being the destroyer of our country. Think about that, you create a program to help a few today, and you roll the dice on killing millions in 60 years. How is the social benefit of entitlement programs a good thing, when it only helps a few for a short while, and possibly plunges the same country into a civil war many years later. Or at least economic hardship, that's so bad, many times more harm is done than good.

Socialism, enabled by the past, stealing from the future.

Sounds a lot like Obama health care to me.

I don't know what your talking about, consistency. I completely understand and agree with Wolf, and many others on here. Wolf paid in for many years, and was told that it was a retirement he was paying towards. Although, he knew better. Now, he wants the smarty pants, that support socialism, to pay him back, like they promised. Put the screws to the socialist. Because it has never, and will never work, long term, it's a civilization ender.

Oh, and about using my social security checks, to blow up the liberals. First off, I'm a payer, and never expect to see "my socialism". Second, Obama's socialist liberals targeted audience was low income people, and rich elitist. I'd say the average Obama supporter, has a lot of money, or no money, or their pretty stupid. They aren't average net payers, I'm guessing. It would be poetic justice to blow up people, that thought Social Security payments, helped people. Social Security financed the killing of socialist. Don't worry, I don't have to do anything. When it all comes crashing down, others will be doing it for me.
 
Liberalism will eventually lead to the death of any democracy. If only it were as simple as Kill the liberal and save the nation (I volunteer Ruffy). South park said it best- we need the conservatives to fight for the country but we need the ***** hippies to complain and make the rest of the world like us.

Cycle of Democracy

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."

Dr. Alexander Tytler, a Scot professor, wrote a scholarly tome, from which this concept comes, called "The Athenian Republic" which was published shortly before the thirteen American colonies gained independence from Britain. "Google" him to learn more.

In publishing a handout on the "Cycle" in 1994 I noted that the national debt had reached a staggering $4.5 trillion dollars. A year ago (Oct. 1, '07) it had soared to $9.06 trillion! Barely one year later (Oct. 17, '08) it is $10.3 trillion!! Our forebears thought of debt as slavery. They would be shocked at what their descendants have done. - - John Wrisley.


Note: We are aware of the selfless efforts of a Georgia attorney to disprove the "Cycle." He says he painstakingly researched everything Professor Tytler wrote and cannot find the above sequence. He did, however, observe that in Tytler's extensive writings on the nature of democracies through the ages the general trends are as the Cycle sequence states. ~JW
 
Social Security was the result of the great depression. People didn't have any savings at all and when they lost their jobs they lost everything. SS was developed as a way to ensure everyone had some kind of savings.

This is the same exact reasoning behind obamacare. It will have the exact same result as every single government health care system in the world. It will fail, unfortunetly it won't fail till after it has bankrupted the country (oh wait, we are already bankrupt).

by the time everyone realises it was a terrible idea and won't work, it will be too late. There will be too many people hooked on it. Liberals will use the same old tired, "it will hurt families and childeren" mantra and the media stands up and shows all those poor little people that relied on the feds for everything that will now suffer for their ignorance.

It is possible to save our nation, but it will take politicians with a serious backbone.
 
Now, he wants the smarty pants, that support socialism, to pay him back, like they promised. Put the screws to the socialist.

So the perpetuation of the system is all because of spite? LMAO...

Good old American selfishness.... actually it is quite pathetic.. So much for morality...
 
It is possible to save our nation, but it will take American voters with a serious backbone.

We are the week ones. When it comes right down to it, we don't care about the country, or the people. Only our pathetic little lives....
 
We are the week ones. When it comes right down to it, we don't care about the country, or the people. Only our pathetic little lives....

First of all, you may consider YOUR life to be pathetic, I happen to like mine.
When it comes right down to it, when the people are actually informed they stand up and make things happen. Just look at the last time the big push came for amnesty, it scared the dog snot out of washington because of the number of people that said no.

That is what you are seeing now with health care. THe politicians are going forward knowing they are going against what the people want.
 
First of all, you may consider YOUR life to be pathetic, I happen to like mine.
Like has nothing to do with it. You are more then able to like your pathetic life. ;)

It is a comparison of frame of reference that is used in determining roles of government and social order...
 
Ruffy, I can solve your problem, the natural progression of socialism is communism. The only difference is communism has normally developed into a dictatorship. Again the normal progression was once people were no longer needed as voters, they were put to work and as private enterprise was unwieldy and no longer needed everyone went to work in the mines and such. If people Couldn't or wouldn't work any more, they ended up in the gulags and then mass graves just read the histories of Russia and China. Socialism and communism just naturally suck and have never worked.
 
Last edited:
So the perpetuation of the system is all because of spite? LMAO...

Good old American selfishness.... actually it is quite pathetic.. So much for morality...

No, the prepetuation of the system, is the promised benefits, that can't be substained. It only has one potential outcome.

If the azhats that really believed in helping the children, would use their money, then they wouldn't need to bother the rest of us. So, instead of using their funds to do the work they preceive needs to be done, they steal from others at the point of a gun. Who here is really the the sinner, the believers of personal responsibility, or the emotional mobsters that rape you in the name of children? One believes you should put your money where your mouth is, the other believes other people should pay for their beliefs.
 
Like has nothing to do with it. You are more then able to like your pathetic life. ;)

It is a comparison of frame of reference that is used in determining roles of government and social order...

Government and social order?!?!
Define that would you.
Bo has a new rule he is pushing. It will allow the feds to step in and "rescue" institutions that are "too big to fail". What a load of BS. This will allow bo and company to step in and take over ANY company for ANY reason.

Is this the kind of social order you are refering too there ruffy?

Social order, what a wonderful liberal phrase you have there.
Whats next?
Re-education camps?
 
Social order - the terms of a government and a social or rather societal structure or rules and laws of a particular society..
I think that is close.

Government - the mechanism or body that is used to create or keep social order..

You have yet to reply to the fact that when Texas got their tort reform, there were no reductions in health care costs as seen by the premium payer.
 
Last edited:
No, the prepetuation of the system, is the promised benefits, that can't be substained. It only has one potential outcome.

Nope, you already stated why Wolfrun is still in the system, and you stated the reason was spite. Spite for those that took the money away...

Eveyone that pays into it now hates it, and then it seems it becomes OK to use the system when we benefit it...

Seems in the end, all the talk is just that. Most will drink from the trough eventually.. mostly when their own personal benefit is increased.
 
Social order - the terms of a government and a social or rather societal structure or rules and laws of a particular society..
I think that is close.

Social order is defined as a set of social rules that govern the conduct of the populous. It has NOTHING to do with government or government control.

Government - the mechanism or body that is used to create or keep social order..

wrong. Government is only a mechanism to enforce laws. Government by its self has ZERO control of social order.

You have yet to reply to the fact that when Texas got their tort reform, there were no reductions in health care costs as seen by the premium payer.

Simple, as I stated in my previous posts. Tort reform by itself can't do much. It has to be coupled with other reforms such as allowing people to shop for insurance all over the country (increased competition), allowing drugs to be imported and remove the monopoly of the current drug companies, both of which texas can't do. That is the job of the federal government and they have no intention of doing ANYTHING that will lower the cost of medical coverage because it will lessen their chances of passing obamacare.

As for social order, the dems have been undermining social order for 30 years, they ignore laws, grant amnesty to import even more criminals who will in turn vote for those self same dems.
The dems support such groups as the ACLU and NAACP, both of which have been undermining our laws and social order for 30 years.
They put judges in place that ignore the constitution in favor of "Empathy". They ignore the laws in favor of "special circumstances".
 
Ollie, not quite...

Social order - it comes through the government and its use of rules and laws. The government enforces social order..

Government is the execution of by the public to enforce social order.

I should add that the linking between social order and government only applies to some or rather part of our social order. There are some aspects of social order that the government does not play a part of, for obvious reasons.

Oh, and if tort on it's own represents insignificant reductions in cost, then its contribution to reduce costs will be insignificant no matter what else you par it with. Sorry, tort reform is a small part, very small part it seems. And anyways, didn't you post up a report that said a lot of money was saved due to ONLY tort reform in Texas? hmmm.... Looks like you were trying to prove that tort reform COULD do much on its own..

Kind of like this diet pill... you need to pair it with 30 minutes of exercise everyday to get the benefits of the pill...
 
Last edited:
Ollie, not quite...

Social order - it comes through the government and its use of rules and laws. The government enforces social order..

Government is the execution of by the public to enforce social order.

Wrong. It is a common arguement of liberals and socialist, however here is the actual definition
http://dictionary.babylon.com/social order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order


Oh, and if tort on it's own represents insignificant reductions in cost, then its contribution to reduce costs will be insignificant no matter what else you par it with. Sorry, tort reform is a small part, very small part it seems. And anyways, didn't you post up a report that said a lot of money was saved due to ONLY tort reform in Texas? hmmm.... Looks like you were trying to prove that tort reform COULD do much on its own..

Kind of like this diet pill... you need to pair it with 30 minutes of exercise everyday to get the benefits of the pill...



You didn't actually READ the article as to the huge savings associated with tort reform did you?
Did it relate to lower costs for the average texan, no, why, there is still no competition or reason for the companies to lower the costs. If you open it up to competition from other states then you will see lower costs. Until the feds get out of the medical buisness, nothing will change.
oh,
and anyone that thinks the costs will go down under obamacare is a fool.
 
I love all this talk about entitlements...

I am pretty sure most on here get and use their social security if/when they can... the same with medicare / medicaid....

Are you kidding me??? Most of the people on this site have worked hard their whole lives paying into Social Security and medicare and won't even see a portion of what they've paid into. Trust me, I would much sooner have invested the money myself rather than give it to the government to take care of it. Social security would be booming if politician's would quit raiding it to pay for pork barrel projects. And medicare would be solvent as well if there were not so much fraud. So don't tell me about entitlements. That is something a person doesn't pay into. I've paid my dues.:mad:
 
Wrong. It is a common arguement of liberals and socialist, however here is the actual definition

Nope, you are continually wrong on this. How do you keep social order? How do you enforce it?

Taken from the wiki site..

A "social order" is a relatively stable system of institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facts of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values.

hmmm... seems like government is involved in some of these...
 
Are you kidding me??? Most of the people on this site have worked hard their whole lives paying into Social Security and medicare and won't even see a portion of what they've paid into. Trust me, I would much sooner have invested the money myself rather than give it to the government to take care of it. Social security would be booming if politician's would quit raiding it to pay for pork barrel projects. And medicare would be solvent as well if there were not so much fraud. So don't tell me about entitlements. That is something a person doesn't pay into. I've paid my dues.:mad:

This is exactly why we will always have social security and medicare...

So many people are against the system saying it is screwed up, but they are still willing to become active players in it... blah..
 
Premium Features



Back
Top