Celebrating Failure???

[dilloduck]

Out of ME ? You're funny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

Making SS private would be the best thing to happen to the country. Damn George Bush for giving up so easily. The problem isn't that they are robbing SS it is the drain that SS puts on the federal government. Because the federal government is the only investment SS is allowed to make. Thus the federal government is buying more and more debt every day and paying more and more on the interest on that debt every day.

They'll never let it happen because of the 'rules.'
1. There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government: Rule no.1: Always try to expand;

Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1. Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

 

[Freewill]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

 

[PoliticalChic]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
OBL Dead
GM alive
New enviro standards
Out of the ME>
Cheap gas.

332-206...America's Victory

Nidal Hasan alive and Detroit dead.

A Millennial Paradise: How Once-Bankrupt Detroit Is Making A Comeback

Gee, another lie from Jumbo. Let me check my watch....right on time.

332-206....Victory is sweet. And worth celebrating.

My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


You can run but you can't hide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

332-206...Earned it!

My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


So....how come you're running away from this?

No 'failure' by this administration has been worse than that of Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq,

so you are free to call this president anything you want, as long as you don't conflict with the irrefutable fact that Obama has been a remarkable improvement over Bush.

And that resonates for the future, since the GOP seems content to offer little more for 2016 other than a return to what Bush gave us.

 

[BlueGin]

7 to 11k mandatory theft per eligible employee plus a 100% employer match. And we are shocked that the government finds ways to rob SS?

And the money grubbing gimme gimme libs are okay with it?

Does this really surprise anyone?

 

[candycorn]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

 

[candycorn]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
OBL Dead
GM alive
New enviro standards
Out of the ME>
Cheap gas.

332-206...America's Victory

Nidal Hasan alive and Detroit dead.

A Millennial Paradise: How Once-Bankrupt Detroit Is Making A Comeback

Gee, another lie from Jumbo. Let me check my watch....right on time.

332-206....Victory is sweet. And worth celebrating.

My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


You can run but you can't hide.

332-206...debate that.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."

Principle is nothing to compassionate conservatives, whining is everything

 

[BlueGin]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

Could you be anymore superficial? I think not.

 

[TooTall]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

332-206...America's Victory

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are Liberal policies really about helping the poor out of poverty?

Well...is there is a simpler way than taking from folks who have earned their success...and, yes...they did built that success,....then Liberals are simply celebrating failure.....

....let's see:


Somehow, and contrary to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the only powers authorized for the federal government....insurance of one variety or another...and that includes Social Security, has been assumed by Liberal big government.


Why?


3. It has long been know that simple, traditional, rules would keep anyone....anyone....from ending up in poverty. They are no secret:


" The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue.
And presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been quoting their findings on the campaign trail.
Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.


If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

Applies to everyone
These rules apply to all races and ethnic groups. Breaking these rules is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, for all racial groups."
Three rules for staying out of poverty

 

[Freewill]

That's what our Liberal pals have been trained to do.
The wisest wonk once said ' Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter a bit in informing their beliefs.'


Proof to follow:


1. Recently, a thread, "Beating Social Security," [ http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/beating-social-security.452840/], documented that:

a. Franklin Roosevelt's plan, Social Security was a careless adventure, poorly designed.

b. It has resulted in $ trillions of debt generations into the future

c. Courts have found that government has no legal obligation to pay off any of its Social Security promises.

And.....
d. There are actual plans which, mathematically and financially, work out better than the Democrat plan.


And these alternatives to Roosevelt's plan have been proven successful..
"... a privatized Social Security ... Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0




2. Yet, those indoctrinated to love and defend anything Liberal or Democrat immediately lied, claiming that the thread was about ending Social Security.
Posts like these:

"Yessireee.................. Good GOP morals, work them till they drop, and then throw them out into the street to die. "Let him die, let him die!!!". And ol' Staph is cheering all the way. Until they throw her out into the street. Maybe then she can 'roll'. "Beating Social Security | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"How many people here will be taking Grandma in to live with them after they take away her SS payments (yes, I know, all of your grandparents are millionaires and they don't need SS). Will you be paying her medical bills, too, after you destroy Medicare?" Beating Social Security | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"As long as morons like Politicalchic are posting plagiarized stupidity, the right and good goal of eliminating Social Security will remain fatally tainted with her taint." Beating Social Security | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?" Beating Social Security | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Not a single one these comments is based on anything in that thread. They are the product of mind-numbed Liberal robots, found in surfeit hereabouts.



Is this a declaration that Liberals/Democrats endorse failure in the Social Security plan, just as they do in endorsing Liberal/Democrat Welfare policy?
You betcha!!!

Democrat/Liberal policy is not to move folks out of poverty....
....it is to maintain poverty, and keep the welfare plantation fully stocked.


And Democrat/Liberal Social Security design is not to insure the elderly, it is to grow government.

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

Oh you wish she hadn't but damn if she didn't. She echoed everything Bush said and voted in favor of everything he wanted. Voting for Mrs. clinton will be like voting for the war all over again. And it is really something that a woman can win two elections because of her husband in a state she never lived.

 

[candycorn]

I remember the Democrats standing up and cheering when Bush said in his SOTU address that privatized Social Security was dead....thanks to the efforts of the Democrats.

They were sooooooo happy that the cookie jar was still there for them to steal from.

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

Could you be anymore superficial? I think not.

332-206....10 foot tall and bulletproof.

 

[BlueGin]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

332-206...America's Victory

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

And apparently that shrinking middle class doesn't need the 7 to 11k they are robbed of every year. God knows they have NOTHING they could be using that money for.

 

[Freewill]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

332-206...America's Victory

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

Actually OBL dead thanks to kidney failure.

 

[BlueGin]

I remember that also. It really is amazing how the left has convinced some of the people in this country that Republicans are out to screw them, when in reality, the Democrats put forth legislation that appears to be pro-American, then hides all of its little "screw devices" in the extra pages. When a Republican sees them and won' vote for it because of it, we get from left.........see what they won't support!

It is exactly why bills are soooooo biiiiiiggggg, so politicians can hide the true meaning of the legislation from the American people!

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

Could you be anymore superficial? I think not.

332-206....10 foot tall and bulletproof.

Bullet proof no... Ignore worthy yes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
OBL Dead
GM alive
New enviro standards
Out of the ME>
Cheap gas.

332-206...America's Victory

Nidal Hasan alive and Detroit dead.

A Millennial Paradise: How Once-Bankrupt Detroit Is Making A Comeback

Gee, another lie from Jumbo. Let me check my watch....right on time.

332-206....Victory is sweet. And worth celebrating.

My offer is still open: don't hesitate if you'd like to see the dozens of failures of this mistake in the White House....
...and you can choose: domestic bungles or foreign policy.


You can run but you can't hide.

332-206...debate that.

There is no debate there: you admit to celebrating failure.

 

[candycorn]

332-206 Victory is Sweet. Your move.

It was sweet for the libs but not the country.

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

332-206...America's Victory

Economy coming back
With a shrinking middle class
OBL Dead
Thanks to Bush's spending on the military
GM alive
After declaring bankruptcy
New enviro standards
increasing prices
Out of the ME>
starting to send troops back in
Cheap gas.
ever hear of fracking.

I guess you prefer OBL to be alive, GM to have been shuddered, dirty air/water/land, more toops getting blown to bit in an unwinnable war?

332-206
Real Men Do it Twice!!!!

 

[candycorn]

Tell me about it:

George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act - Oct 26, 2001 - HISTORY.com

All 342 pages....I guess we had to sign it to see what was in it.

Yeah tell us, Hillary Clinton

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

• 
  Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

I wish she hadn't done that. I wish she hadn't voted for the resolution to go to war in the first place. When you're a US Senator (twice elected) and the former SoS, you won't get every decision right. Nobody does. Al Pacino is a successful actor...right? You know he turned down Ray Liota's role in Goodfellas because he didn't want to be typecast? I bet he wished he could have that one back--the lead role in an iconic film.

Could you be anymore superficial? I think not.

332-206....10 foot tall and bulletproof.

Bullet proof no... Ignore worthy yes.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out (if it can fit through the door frame).