It's funny "scienceloving liberals" are following Darwinian ..

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
28,222
9,816
900
"Survival of the fittest" i.e. clawing and grabbing to continue to exist!

Instead of making the individual strong and independent "liberal/progressives" see ONLY the government can take care of them!

Since FDR the country has wrongly considered government as last resort.
Over $20 trillion spent on war on poverty programs and we still have "poor"
albeit the "poor" have free food,rent,cell phones, television plus cash we still have poor! WHY?

So if the government after 80+ years the "New Deal", "Great Society" has more poor then in the beginning... how else would one conclude that the government can NOT eliminate poverty!

The ONE sure way of providing security for all of us is simple.
It's called "compound interest"!

When social security was started in 1935 instead of TAKING the money and counting these trillions of dollars as general revenue, the first individual to pay in was allowed to accumulate would have had on retirement at age of 65 over $133,518 in 1975 or ($532,834 in 2010 inflation adjusted).

So again.. there is a simple solution and as Newt said.
.
I'm outlining later on today a proposal for a personal Social Security savings account for young people, it would be voluntary choice. Keep the current system if you want to, or go the savings account model, and the best estimates are somewhere between 90 and 100 percent will voluntarily pick the savings account model," Gingrich said.

The side effect to such savings plans would be "huge economic growth," with surplus and capital to invest, Gingrich said.

"Notice I just described a totally different world, and a world, by the way, that none of the Washington bureaucracies can score, because they're all socialists and none of them have any type of free market model."

And most of you liberal/progressives won't understand any of this.. which makes you the perfect example of "Darwinian survival of the fittest"!
You depend on the charity of others rather then the ability of yourself!
That's it!!
 
"Survival of the fittest" i.e. clawing and grabbing to continue to exist!

Instead of making the individual strong and independent "liberal/progressives" see ONLY the government can take care of them!

Since FDR the country has wrongly considered government as last resort.
Over $20 trillion spent on war on poverty programs and we still have "poor"
albeit the "poor" have free food,rent,cell phones, television plus cash we still have poor! WHY?

So if the government after 80+ years the "New Deal", "Great Society" has more poor then in the beginning... how else would one conclude that the government can NOT eliminate poverty!

The ONE sure way of providing security for all of us is simple.
It's called "compound interest"!

When social security was started in 1935 instead of TAKING the money and counting these trillions of dollars as general revenue, the first individual to pay in was allowed to accumulate would have had on retirement at age of 65 over $133,518 in 1975 or ($532,834 in 2010 inflation adjusted).

So again.. there is a simple solution and as Newt said.
.
I'm outlining later on today a proposal for a personal Social Security savings account for young people, it would be voluntary choice. Keep the current system if you want to, or go the savings account model, and the best estimates are somewhere between 90 and 100 percent will voluntarily pick the savings account model," Gingrich said.

The side effect to such savings plans would be "huge economic growth," with surplus and capital to invest, Gingrich said.

"Notice I just described a totally different world, and a world, by the way, that none of the Washington bureaucracies can score, because they're all socialists and none of them have any type of free market model."

And most of you liberal/progressives won't understand any of this.. which makes you the perfect example of "Darwinian survival of the fittest"!
You depend on the charity of others rather then the ability of yourself!
That's it!!

So you espouse "Social Darwinism", the godfather of fascism?!?! :eek:
 
The funny thing is how some people think this type of crap will EVER get traction with the American voters?


Just try and convince the American people their retirement should be tied to stock prices of the day.

Jesus you righties are clueless
 
The funny thing is how some people think this type of crap will EVER get traction with the American voters?


Just try and convince the American people their retirement should be tied to stock prices of the day.

Jesus you righties are clueless

After watching democrats panic at the thought of controlling 10% of their money you may be right.
 
you people have already lost the American people.

look at the polls.

You historically failed ideas have failed yet again.

When this primary is over whoever you pick will be so tea party tainted they will have to YET AGAIN change all their postitions to appeal to the voter in the genreal election.

Then we can shove the FLIPP FLOPPER line you created right down your throats
 
Americans have acclimated to living in a modern society. They realize that the old "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest" is not the type of society we want to exist in. Every industrialized nation on earth has realized the same thing and uses their society for the betterment of all.

Only the most extreme of the extremists want to go back
 
Americans have acclimated to living in a modern society. They realize that the old "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest" is not the type of society we want to exist in. Every industrialized nation on earth has realized the same thing and uses their society for the betterment of all.

Only the most extreme of the extremists want to go back

Exactly...so why do many on this board want to broad brush paint all those on the right as such when it is just the most extreme of the extremists?

Should we paint a broad brush on those of the left as ones that want cummunism?
 
"Survival of the fittest" i.e. clawing and grabbing to continue to exist!

Instead of making the individual strong and independent "liberal/progressives" see ONLY the government can take care of them!

Since FDR the country has wrongly considered government as last resort.
Over $20 trillion spent on war on poverty programs and we still have "poor"
albeit the "poor" have free food,rent,cell phones, television plus cash we still have poor! WHY?

So if the government after 80+ years the "New Deal", "Great Society" has more poor then in the beginning... how else would one conclude that the government can NOT eliminate poverty!

The ONE sure way of providing security for all of us is simple.
It's called "compound interest"!

When social security was started in 1935 instead of TAKING the money and counting these trillions of dollars as general revenue, the first individual to pay in was allowed to accumulate would have had on retirement at age of 65 over $133,518 in 1975 or ($532,834 in 2010 inflation adjusted).

So again.. there is a simple solution and as Newt said.
.
I'm outlining later on today a proposal for a personal Social Security savings account for young people, it would be voluntary choice. Keep the current system if you want to, or go the savings account model, and the best estimates are somewhere between 90 and 100 percent will voluntarily pick the savings account model," Gingrich said.

The side effect to such savings plans would be "huge economic growth," with surplus and capital to invest, Gingrich said.

"Notice I just described a totally different world, and a world, by the way, that none of the Washington bureaucracies can score, because they're all socialists and none of them have any type of free market model."

And most of you liberal/progressives won't understand any of this.. which makes you the perfect example of "Darwinian survival of the fittest"!
You depend on the charity of others rather then the ability of yourself!
That's it!!

So if the government should stop helping the poor because the government can't eliminate poverty,

should we also stop spending money on the military because government can't end war?
 
Great thread. I'd take my money out of congresses hands in a heartbeat. Anyone who knows what they do with our money and allows them to continue to waste it are foolish at best.
 
The funny thing is how some people think this type of crap will EVER get traction with the American voters?


Just try and convince the American people their retirement should be tied to stock prices of the day.

Jesus you righties are clueless


So YOU THINK the ONLY way is to accumulate money is through the "stock prices"???

CLUELESS????

Evidently you put your money in your mattress or bury in the backyard.
You evidently NEVER heard of the FDIC or savings accounts or CDs?

See there is a whole other secured place to accumulate money.
It is called "SAVINGS ACCOUNTS" in case you never heard of them!

You can take the paltry sum you have in your mattress or back yard and
take it to the bank and they will PAY you...wow novel concept!

And you can get it ALL back if it is insured.

CLUELESS... you don't need to invest in the "stock market" do you understand???
Or is that too hard to comprehend?

Oh and by the way.. IF the stock market is so bad please explain to me why over the past 109 years the DJIA for you Dow Jones Industrial Average) has had 68 times where there were increases... 32 decreases for an OVERALL average per years of 6.8% increase but of course FACTS like these Mean nothing to someone who buries whatever paltry sum in their back yard!

DEAL with FACT "clueless!!!"http://forecastchart.com/historical-dow-industrial.html
 
Americans have acclimated to living in a modern society. They realize that the old "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest" is not the type of society we want to exist in. Every industrialized nation on earth has realized the same thing and uses their society for the betterment of all.

Only the most extreme of the extremists want to go back

Exactly...so why do many on this board want to broad brush paint all those on the right as such when it is just the most extreme of the extremists?

Should we paint a broad brush on those of the left as ones that want cummunism?

And yet we get threads like this every day....you are welcome to show me a thread of anyone advocating communism
 
"Social Darwinism" is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution, and also of the nature of the human species. We are a social species, not a solitary one. There is no such thing as a completely self-sufficient human being; we all live in a community context and support each other as much as -- or more than -- we individually support ourselves. Community is one of our strengths as a species. It's the reason we evolved language, and at least half the reason why we evolved high intelligence. To abandon community for a hyper-individualistic stance such as the OP recognizes is to abandon at least half of humanity's survival advantage, and if it could really be done it would be inviting extinction of our species.
 
"Social Darwinism" is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution, and also of the nature of the human species. We are a social species, not a solitary one. There is no such thing as a completely self-sufficient human being; we all live in a community context and support each other as much as -- or more than -- we individually support ourselves. Community is one of our strengths as a species. It's the reason we evolved language, and at least half the reason why we evolved high intelligence. To abandon community for a hyper-individualistic stance such as the OP recognizes is to abandon at least half of humanity's survival advantage, and if it could really be done it would be inviting extinction of our species.

I assume you are then a firm advocate of as first outlined by Edward Wilson in E.O. Wilson defines sociobiology as: “The extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organisation”

In which case I assume you believe behavior can be modified by society?
After all what you wrote above appears to be saying communities extend the life of an individual therefore society can modify behavior and therefore extend lives?

All that said.. do you think then being a homosexual is a learned behavior OR genetic i.e. due to society allowing more open homosexual behavior more homosexuals exist?

And if more homosexuals exist at some point same sex unions DO NOT produce children and if homosexual behaviour is more acceptable is the community therefore at odds to your above observation..
"Community is one of our strengths as a species."?

At odds in that if "community is the strength as a species.. and community encourages homosexuality and homosexuality excludes reproduction sex,
isn't there a conflict here???
 
"Social Darwinism" is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution, and also of the nature of the human species. We are a social species, not a solitary one. There is no such thing as a completely self-sufficient human being; we all live in a community context and support each other as much as -- or more than -- we individually support ourselves. Community is one of our strengths as a species. It's the reason we evolved language, and at least half the reason why we evolved high intelligence. To abandon community for a hyper-individualistic stance such as the OP recognizes is to abandon at least half of humanity's survival advantage, and if it could really be done it would be inviting extinction of our species.

I assume you are then a firm advocate of as first outlined by Edward Wilson in E.O. Wilson defines sociobiology as: “The extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organisation”

In which case I assume you believe behavior can be modified by society?
After all what you wrote above appears to be saying communities extend the life of an individual therefore society can modify behavior and therefore extend lives?

All that said.. do you think then being a homosexual is a learned behavior OR genetic i.e. due to society allowing more open homosexual behavior more homosexuals exist?

And if more homosexuals exist at some point same sex unions DO NOT produce children and if homosexual behaviour is more acceptable is the community therefore at odds to your above observation..
"Community is one of our strengths as a species."?

At odds in that if "community is the strength as a species.. and community encourages homosexuality and homosexuality excludes reproduction sex,
isn't there a conflict here???

Please rephrase. Your question doesn't make clear exactly where you think the conflict lies. Saying that, since homosexuals "don't produce children", are you implying that that homosexuality should have been bred out by now? If that's your case, I dispute your premise, since throughout history homosexuals HAVE had children, usually as a cover-up to deflect social stigma or to leave a legacy and heirs.
 
"Survival of the fittest" i.e. clawing and grabbing to continue to exist!

Instead of making the individual strong and independent "liberal/progressives" see ONLY the government can take care of them!

Since FDR the country has wrongly considered government as last resort.
Over $20 trillion spent on war on poverty programs and we still have "poor"
albeit the "poor" have free food,rent,cell phones, television plus cash we still have poor! WHY?

So if the government after 80+ years the "New Deal", "Great Society" has more poor then in the beginning... how else would one conclude that the government can NOT eliminate poverty!

The ONE sure way of providing security for all of us is simple.
It's called "compound interest"!

When social security was started in 1935 instead of TAKING the money and counting these trillions of dollars as general revenue, the first individual to pay in was allowed to accumulate would have had on retirement at age of 65 over $133,518 in 1975 or ($532,834 in 2010 inflation adjusted).

So again.. there is a simple solution and as Newt said.
.
I'm outlining later on today a proposal for a personal Social Security savings account for young people, it would be voluntary choice. Keep the current system if you want to, or go the savings account model, and the best estimates are somewhere between 90 and 100 percent will voluntarily pick the savings account model," Gingrich said.

The side effect to such savings plans would be "huge economic growth," with surplus and capital to invest, Gingrich said.

"Notice I just described a totally different world, and a world, by the way, that none of the Washington bureaucracies can score, because they're all socialists and none of them have any type of free market model."

And most of you liberal/progressives won't understand any of this.. which makes you the perfect example of "Darwinian survival of the fittest"!
You depend on the charity of others rather then the ability of yourself!
That's it!!

How is this related to science?
 

Forum List

Back
Top