UK to ban depictions of traditional mothers in ads.

[Silver Pie]

Going back to the tidbit about jaywalking - I've never been stopped by an officer when I have crossed the street where I pleased, though I did know there was a law about jaywalking when I was younger. (I don't know if there are still laws like that or not.) There used to be laws against spitting on the sidewalk (created when there was a tuberculosis epidemic).

I think I would trust what Robin Hood says about seeing Russia and Germany and that they were not much different than the "free" countries. I have often wondered if we were being brainwashed into thinking we were "free" and that there really was no difference between the average USSR citizen and the average US citizen. Just because we think we are free doesn't mean we are.

[David13]

Going back to the tidbit about jaywalking - I've never been stopped by an officer when I have crossed the street where I pleased, though I did know there was a law about jaywalking when I was younger. (I don't know if there are still laws like that or not.) There used to be laws against spitting on the sidewalk (created when there was a tuberculosis epidemic).

I think I would trust what Robin Hood says about seeing Russia and Germany and that they were not much different than the "free" countries. I have often wondered if we were being brainwashed into thinking we were "free" and that there really was no difference between the average USSR citizen and the average US citizen. Just because we think we are free doesn't mean we are.

Silver Pie
He is totally wrong. There were tremendous differences.
They still can be seen in Venezuela. Rather than the bread lined up for people to purchase, as we have here in the US, they have people lined up to buy bread, and there is none. That was all very common in Soviet Russia as well, not just bread but many a product or even basic necessity.

Robin Hood has been indoctrinated into all the socialist lies. Including, if you don't call it socialism, then it isn't socialism.

dc

[Silver Pie]

Thanks for your reply, David13.

I remember when I first started seeing empty spots on shelves in Walmart. It made me think of the stories I'd heard about Soviet Russia. We're not as bad as those stories, yet, but it did make me think of them.

I have not been to Russia. I have not been out of this country, except to Mexico. I can only take others' words for what is happening in other places.

[gclayjr]

Silver Pie,

I think I would trust what Robin Hood says about seeing Russia and Germany and that they were not much different than the "free" countries. I have often wondered if we were being brainwashed into thinking we were "free" and that there really was no difference between the average USSR citizen and the average US citizen. Just because we think we are free doesn't mean we are.

Read my discussion earlier in this thread, about my working in the Czech Republic. There is a great difference, and it is obvious if you get a chance to see it. Robin Hood likes to babel about some subtle differences between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism just as Chevrolet and Ford fans argue about the differences between the makes of their cars. The fact of the matter is that those kind of Socialists believe in incremental-ism. They understand that once people get something that is "free" they will never vote to give it up.

That is why, no matter how many financial experts and common sense tells you that we are on an "unsustainable" path, Nobody, nobody will vote to reduce the budget significantly, particularly since so large a part of the budget is for "mandatory spending" on entitlement benefits to citizens. that those citizens feel they are owed. (disclaimer, I am 66 years old and do collect SS and Medicare .. however, I would vote to reduce or eliminate it if given the opportunity).

This is part of the smoke being blown by Robin Hood. Are people in the U.S. or U.K. free to choose their medical care and pay only for their choice? No, however, even under Obama Care, we still have more choices, and the government is not as wasteful as with the British NHS. I remember listening to an old lecture by Cleon Skousen, from years ago where he details exposing to his British associates just how wasteful, and useless the NHS was, and he could never get passed their passioned reply "but it is free for everybody". Just read Robin Hood and Daftys posts on my thread regarding the infamous murder of Charley Gard, by the NHS, and you see just how passionate and those Brits are in regards to their beloved NHS, who in their mind is nothing but a benevolent wonder.

The bottom line is that in most of the world where Satan isn't convincing people to take other's freedom of choice away by force he is carefully leading us down the path to voluntarily giving up our freedom for slavery, whether under the name of compassion, liberalism, social democracy, democratic socialism or what, That doesn't mean that just because we have traveled a long way down that path that there aren't others that have traveled even farther, and lost a lot more of their freedom than we have. We do have to be careful not to minimize this lest in our admiration ( or not seeing any differences), Satan finds another way to deceive us.

Regards,

George Clay

[David13]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

[Robin Hood]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

The first part of your assertion is true. The problem with Socialized systems such as Social Security, is that EVERYBODY must participate. One could understand SS, NHS, or Obama Care as being less of a Socialist enslavement, if they were just targeted to the needy. I believe that individuals and charities are more effective in providing for the needy than governments. However, if those systems were just targeted to the needy they would be less enslaving.

In fact statistics show that when there is a major natural disaster, there is regularly much more private charitable donations from the citizens of the U.S. than from citizens in most European countries and often more donations from European governments than from the American government,. This has often been explained that the culture and governments in Europe see this as more of a job for the government, than a duty of individuals.

I know you Socialists like to repeat the mantra of Private sector Greed, like Nazis shout Heil Hitler, but what actual evidence do you have? .. oh yea, like I said above, you Europeans think that this is the pervue of the government, so none of you or your companies actually do charity yourselves. Maybe if you didn't spend all of your time laughing at mobile homes, pickups trucks and rednecks, when you come to this country, you would see just how much Charity is performed by Corporations, private organizations, and individuals, whether it be something like Ronald McDonald, House, The LDS Church, or even some of our good citizens.

Regards,

George Clay

[David13]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

Yes, it's a scheme. A nefarious socialist scheme that started in 1935.
Yes, the US started on a socialist path way back then.

The great private sector viable alternative is ... self responsibility. Save some of your money for retirement, work on a pension plan, be ready to provide for your self.

And that scheme was part of the socialist evil, or plot or conspiracy, to undermine or destroy self responsibility. Or at least to have the net effect of doing so, as now why would anyone worry, or use caution and concern, when they can ... just depend on the government to take care of you.

I don't know what the answer is either, if there is one.

I know I had no choice but to participate.

But I do know if I had simply had the freedom to place the money into an account, it would still be there for me. As would an annuity, or insurance policy. So all greed and profit aside, I'd get more that way.

And I suppose I do need to add, get more ... of my own money.
dc

[Robin Hood]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

Yes, it's a scheme. A nefarious socialist scheme that started in 1935.
Yes, the US started on a socialist path way back then.

The great private sector viable alternative is ... self responsibility. Save some of your money for retirement, work on a pension plan, be ready to provide for your self.

And that scheme was part of the socialist evil, or plot or conspiracy, to undermine or destroy self responsibility. Or at least to have the net effect of doing so, as now why would anyone worry, or use caution and concern, when they can ... just depend on the government to take care of you.

I don't know what the answer is either, if there is one.

I know I had no choice but to participate.

But I do know if I had simply had the freedom to place the money into an account, it would still be there for me. As would an annuity, or insurance policy. So all greed and profit aside, I'd get more that way.

And I suppose I do need to add, get more ... of my own money.
dc

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

[David13]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

Yes, it's a scheme. A nefarious socialist scheme that started in 1935.
Yes, the US started on a socialist path way back then.

The great private sector viable alternative is ... self responsibility. Save some of your money for retirement, work on a pension plan, be ready to provide for your self.

And that scheme was part of the socialist evil, or plot or conspiracy, to undermine or destroy self responsibility. Or at least to have the net effect of doing so, as now why would anyone worry, or use caution and concern, when they can ... just depend on the government to take care of you.

I don't know what the answer is either, if there is one.

I know I had no choice but to participate.

But I do know if I had simply had the freedom to place the money into an account, it would still be there for me. As would an annuity, or insurance policy. So all greed and profit aside, I'd get more that way.

And I suppose I do need to add, get more ... of my own money.
dc

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

What about those unable to not use drugs. What about those unable to not commit crimes. What about those who ... insert any vice, problem, etc., here. What about them? It gets us right down to the basic issue of freedom. Are we free to live our lives, drive tractors and pick up trucks, identify as rednecks and proud of it, or is it up to the government to come into our lives and run it for us.

That's what makes a socialist. Someone who thinks the government should run the lives of the people.

What about those who are unable to fix breakfast in the morning? Is it the responsibility of government to pay for the breakfast and have it on the table for them when they get up?

You see Robin Hood, this is why we call you a socialist. We believe people should be able to live their life, even if you consider it ... trashy.

That's what freedom means.

dc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185492036550/

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

While David13 and share some similar views, they are not exactly the same.

I would summarize it in that you don't take care of those who can't take care of themselves by taking care of everybody!

There is a place for charity, but it should be only for those who need it... not everybody!

Regards,

George Clay

[David13]

Robin Hood,

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

While David13 and share some similar views, they are not exactly the same.

I would summarize it in that you don't take care of those who can't take care of themselves by taking care of everybody!

There is a place for charity, but it should be only for those who need it... not everybody!

Regards,

George Clay

Maybe not stated exactly the same, but I think probably similar.
I believe in charity, and indeed only for those who need it, not everybody.

But I also believe you would agree the government should not run everyone's life.
dc

[gclayjr]

David13,

But I also believe you would agree the government should not run everyone's life.
dc

Yes, in fact I believe that private charity is superior to government charity.


However This brings up another issue. I'm not sure that a generally free, constitutional republic is best for everyone. It only works in a society with a certain level of civility and love for our fellow man. Some groups of people actually are better off with a dictator. Some recent examples might include Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian people. When given a more free choice all of these groups chose to brutalize and kill those who were Christian, Jew, or not the right flavor of Islamic. We tend not to value the importance of the kind of character that both individuals and society have when subscribing to more true principles such as is taught in traditional Judeo Christian culture.

When the moral character of a society falls far enough, they can only be kept from mayhem, by the strong hand of a tyrant.

Interestingly many of the things that are brought into a society by Socialism, to include lack of feeling a need to be self reliant, covetousness, sexual promiscuity, and lack of traditional family values, actually helps condition a population to be less able to function well in a more free society. While somewhat self fulfilling, in my opinion, going backwards, instead of forward.

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Social security is not an invested system. The social security you have paid funded the benefits of those drawing them at the time. When you draw benefits that is likewise funded by those contributing now. It's basically an insurance scheme organised on a national scale by the government.
In theory it should work ok. In practice it rarely does.
But the private sector are too greedy and too profit driven to provide a viable alternative for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is.

Yes, it's a scheme. A nefarious socialist scheme that started in 1935.
Yes, the US started on a socialist path way back then.

The great private sector viable alternative is ... self responsibility. Save some of your money for retirement, work on a pension plan, be ready to provide for your self.

And that scheme was part of the socialist evil, or plot or conspiracy, to undermine or destroy self responsibility. Or at least to have the net effect of doing so, as now why would anyone worry, or use caution and concern, when they can ... just depend on the government to take care of you.

I don't know what the answer is either, if there is one.

I know I had no choice but to participate.

But I do know if I had simply had the freedom to place the money into an account, it would still be there for me. As would an annuity, or insurance policy. So all greed and profit aside, I'd get more that way.

And I suppose I do need to add, get more ... of my own money.
dc

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

What about those unable to not use drugs. What about those unable to not commit crimes. What about those who ... insert any vice, problem, etc., here. What about them? It gets us right down to the basic issue of freedom. Are we free to live our lives, drive tractors and pick up trucks, identify as rednecks and proud of it, or is it up to the government to come into our lives and run it for us.

That's what makes a socialist. Someone who thinks the government should run the lives of the people.

What about those who are unable to fix breakfast in the morning? Is it the responsibility of government to pay for the breakfast and have it on the table for them when they get up?

You see Robin Hood, this is why we call you a socialist. We believe people should be able to live their life, even if you consider it ... trashy.

That's what freedom means.

dc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185492036550/

Actually dc, I'm talking about the disabled.

[dafty]

...so im gonna risk getting a 3rd strike from the red dragon and say-DC, with all due respect, u R limited in you understanding and very, very short sighted...and narrow minded.
PS. Thumbs up to Robin for persevering...I guess this is the patience of a saint...
Edit:offensive word re-worded

[David13]

...so im gonna risk getting a 3rd strike from the red dragon and say-DC, with all due respect, u R retarted and very, very short sighted...and narrow minded.
PS. Thumbs up to Robin for persevering...I guess this is the patience of a saint...

And you are grossly politically incorrect, and generally incorrect, but well brainwashed into socialist nonsense. In other words, look in the mirror.
dc

[David13]

Yes, it's a scheme. A nefarious socialist scheme that started in 1935.
Yes, the US started on a socialist path way back then.

The great private sector viable alternative is ... self responsibility. Save some of your money for retirement, work on a pension plan, be ready to provide for your self.

And that scheme was part of the socialist evil, or plot or conspiracy, to undermine or destroy self responsibility. Or at least to have the net effect of doing so, as now why would anyone worry, or use caution and concern, when they can ... just depend on the government to take care of you.

I don't know what the answer is either, if there is one.

I know I had no choice but to participate.

But I do know if I had simply had the freedom to place the money into an account, it would still be there for me. As would an annuity, or insurance policy. So all greed and profit aside, I'd get more that way.

And I suppose I do need to add, get more ... of my own money.
dc

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

What about those unable to not use drugs. What about those unable to not commit crimes. What about those who ... insert any vice, problem, etc., here. What about them? It gets us right down to the basic issue of freedom. Are we free to live our lives, drive tractors and pick up trucks, identify as rednecks and proud of it, or is it up to the government to come into our lives and run it for us.

That's what makes a socialist. Someone who thinks the government should run the lives of the people.

What about those who are unable to fix breakfast in the morning? Is it the responsibility of government to pay for the breakfast and have it on the table for them when they get up?

You see Robin Hood, this is why we call you a socialist. We believe people should be able to live their life, even if you consider it ... trashy.

That's what freedom means.

dc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185492036550/

Actually dc, I'm talking about the disabled.

Well no, you were talking about 'trailer trash' and how they should not be allowed to live the way they want to live.

And, to say "the disabled" is real nonsense.
Many of the disabled have become disabled thru' some means which has left them with a great deal of resources. Again, you don't know what some of the disabled (here at least) have. Some of them are rather well off, for one reason or another.

But more directly, you said those who were not able to save. How does being disabled prevent them from saving.

Let's say I'm disabled, living in a wheel chair. But I'm a lawyer and make a quite good income. Now, what part of that prevents me from taking some part of that good income and putting it aside for my retirement? Nothing.

So what other nonsense can you come up with to make it look like you are saying that which is directly contrary or irrelevant to what you are really saying (without knowing it)?

Take a clue from Daffy and resort to childish and 'politically incorrect' slander or base name calling.

That will really convince me you even realize what you are saying.
dc

[David13]

David13,

But I also believe you would agree the government should not run everyone's life.
dc

Yes, in fact I believe that private charity is superior to government charity.


However This brings up another issue. I'm not sure that a generally free, constitutional republic is best for everyone. It only works in a society with a certain level of civility and love for our fellow man. Some groups of people actually are better off with a dictator. Some recent examples might include Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian people. When given a more free choice all of these groups chose to brutalize and kill those who were Christian, Jew, or not the right flavor of Islamic. We tend not to value the importance of the kind of character that both individuals and society have when subscribing to more true principles such as is taught in traditional Judeo Christian culture.

When the moral character of a society falls far enough, they can only be kept from mayhem, by the strong hand of a tyrant.

Interestingly many of the things that are brought into a society by Socialism, to include lack of feeling a need to be self reliant, covetousness, sexual promiscuity, and lack of traditional family values, actually helps condition a population to be less able to function well in a more free society. While somewhat self fulfilling, in my opinion, going backwards, instead of forward.

Regards,

George Clay

I quite agree.
Trying to bring "democracy" to barbaric places like Iran, Iraq, etc is pure nonsense.
dc

[Robin Hood]

I know what you're saying.
But what about those who are unable to save?

What about those unable to not use drugs. What about those unable to not commit crimes. What about those who ... insert any vice, problem, etc., here. What about them? It gets us right down to the basic issue of freedom. Are we free to live our lives, drive tractors and pick up trucks, identify as rednecks and proud of it, or is it up to the government to come into our lives and run it for us.

That's what makes a socialist. Someone who thinks the government should run the lives of the people.

What about those who are unable to fix breakfast in the morning? Is it the responsibility of government to pay for the breakfast and have it on the table for them when they get up?

You see Robin Hood, this is why we call you a socialist. We believe people should be able to live their life, even if you consider it ... trashy.

That's what freedom means.

dc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185492036550/

Actually dc, I'm talking about the disabled.

Well no, you were talking about 'trailer trash' and how they should not be allowed to live the way they want to live.

And, to say "the disabled" is real nonsense.
Many of the disabled have become disabled thru' some means which has left them with a great deal of resources. Again, you don't know what some of the disabled (here at least) have. Some of them are rather well off, for one reason or another.

But more directly, you said those who were not able to save. How does being disabled prevent them from saving.

Let's say I'm disabled, living in a wheel chair. But I'm a lawyer and make a quite good income. Now, what part of that prevents me from taking some part of that good income and putting it aside for my retirement? Nothing.

So what other nonsense can you come up with to make it look like you are saying that which is directly contrary or irrelevant to what you are really saying (without knowing it)?

Take a clue from Daffy and resort to childish and 'politically incorrect' slander or base name calling.

That will really convince me you even realize what you are saying.
dc

Dc, there are many disabled people who are unable to work and earn a living, or whose circumstances prevent them from doing anything more than scratch a few pennies together. Their chances of saving for their old age are non-existent.

You're the one who is proposing to do away with social security altogether, so what will happen to these people?

Also, I would point out that I never used the term "trailer trash", you did. I never described those people you refer to at all. I just pointed out that what I had seen in the US would not be tolerated in a western European country. You're the one who is labelling people, not me.

[dafty]

Dave13 wrote,

Take a clue from Daffy and resort to childish and 'politically incorrect' slander or base name calling.

You reap what you sow.You have repeatedly refused to even consider reasonable arguments from Robin and others, on both this thread and NHS related one(if I remember correctly). So I figured, you may respond better to a less civilised argument, more akin to trailer loving 'member of a travelling community'(thats politically correct here in UK ).
But yes, you are right it was very immature of me and I shall remove/edit it right away.

[David13]

What about those unable to not use drugs. What about those unable to not commit crimes. What about those who ... insert any vice, problem, etc., here. What about them? It gets us right down to the basic issue of freedom. Are we free to live our lives, drive tractors and pick up trucks, identify as rednecks and proud of it, or is it up to the government to come into our lives and run it for us.

That's what makes a socialist. Someone who thinks the government should run the lives of the people.

What about those who are unable to fix breakfast in the morning? Is it the responsibility of government to pay for the breakfast and have it on the table for them when they get up?

You see Robin Hood, this is why we call you a socialist. We believe people should be able to live their life, even if you consider it ... trashy.

That's what freedom means.

dc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185492036550/

Actually dc, I'm talking about the disabled.

Well no, you were talking about 'trailer trash' and how they should not be allowed to live the way they want to live.

And, to say "the disabled" is real nonsense.
Many of the disabled have become disabled thru' some means which has left them with a great deal of resources. Again, you don't know what some of the disabled (here at least) have. Some of them are rather well off, for one reason or another.

But more directly, you said those who were not able to save. How does being disabled prevent them from saving.

Let's say I'm disabled, living in a wheel chair. But I'm a lawyer and make a quite good income. Now, what part of that prevents me from taking some part of that good income and putting it aside for my retirement? Nothing.

So what other nonsense can you come up with to make it look like you are saying that which is directly contrary or irrelevant to what you are really saying (without knowing it)?

Take a clue from Daffy and resort to childish and 'politically incorrect' slander or base name calling.

That will really convince me you even realize what you are saying.
dc

Dc, there are many disabled people who are unable to work and earn a living, or whose circumstances prevent them from doing anything more than scratch a few pennies together. Their chances of saving for their old age are non-existent.

You're the one who is proposing to do away with social security altogether, so what will happen to these people?

Also, I would point out that I never used the term "trailer trash", you did. I never described those people you refer to at all. I just pointed out that what I had seen in the US would not be tolerated in a western European country. You're the one who is labelling people, not me.

Robin Hood

You keep changing what you are saying.

You said people who couldn't save. Not "only those people who couldn't save because they were disabled and COULDN'T WORK". You changed it. You added all these qualifiers in.

You can't really say what you mean from the git go because you are unaware of the extent to which you and many of the British people have been indoctrinated into the socialist mindset.

I am not the one who is proposing to do away with social security altogether. Another absolute inability to realize what you read. Or, a lie?

George Clay did not even propose that. He said if it were to be proposed, he would go along with it.

I said I would ONLY GO ALONG WITH IT IF ... they gave me back 50 plus years of contributions.

You see, if you understood American, or English, you would realize that.

Is English your first language?

What you meant was "trailer trash". You said you did not like those people living in trailer parks. All the people who consider themselves above that, too good for that, who snob and snub them, call them trailer trash. You have joined the club, so admit it.

You have also joined the socialist club, but you won't admit it. You try to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Why do you want to do away with traditional mothers in ads? I asked that question about 10 times now. Why no response? You realize that would show your brainwashing?

dc


Charity is voluntary.
When the government takes your money under threat of the gun and imprisonment, that is theft. Not charity.

[Robin Hood]

Dc, just admit it mate, I've got your argument on the run.
Your social security-less utopia is clearly exposed as a deceptive sham.

What I find strange is that you are a member of a church which consistently practices what you would describe as socialist principles!

All in all I admit to being thoroughly surprised by the level of political and social naivety displayed in your posts.

However, you have the chance to redeem yourself by answering a straightforward question. In your world of no social security, how will those who are unable to meet their own needs because of disability, be provided for?

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

Dc, just admit it mate, I've got you on the run.
Your social security-less utopia is clearly exposed as a deceptive sham.

What I find strange is that you are a member of a church which consistently practices what you would describe as socialist principles!

All in all I admit to being thoroughly surprised by the level of political and social naivety displayed in your posts.

However, you have the chance to redeem yourself by answering a straightforward question. In your world of no social security, how will those who are unable to meet their own needs because of disability, be provided for?

The problem with a Social Security less world, is not the problem of the free market, or the problem of a Social Security LESS word. This is the exact problem with Democratic forms of Socialism.


Social Security is an inefficient wealth redistribution system that is particularly imprisoning the coming Generation. What socialist know is that once a system like SS gets embedded into a society it is almost impossible to unwind it. Money is extracted from employee and employer over a lifetime and even in the lying words of our government saved into an account for use for our retirement. Over people's lives they pay this tax, and cannot invest or use this money in any way. Many people are also lulled into thinking all is and will be well because of this government program so they are reluctant to pull the enslaving socialist weed,

What DC is inelegantly trying to say is that since this weed has become embedded, he would want back the money that was taken from him over the past 50 years that he could not have invested and saved for his retirement... then he would like out of SS.. I mentioned that I would vote to repeal it, with the understanding that any such bill would either require some drastic sacrifices from me to save my children and grand children and/or require a complicated unwinding for all of us who have planned our lives around it.

You will see me often go head to head with wacky conspiracy theorists, on this board, because there are many crazy conspiracies out there, but this IS a conspiracy by socialist to lead us step by step carefully down that path to Socialist hell.

Now you slam DC for not giving what you think are coherent answers to your subtle questions, but you blow by and never answer mine!


I will repeat 1 simple question and see if you can answer it.

Why must a net of benefits be thrown over everybody to help the needy?

I have stated before that I think there are better private answers to charity than government, but if you think government should care for the needy why must it be with programs that take care of everybody?

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood,

Dc, just admit it mate, I've got you on the run.
Your social security-less utopia is clearly exposed as a deceptive sham.

What I find strange is that you are a member of a church which consistently practices what you would describe as socialist principles!

All in all I admit to being thoroughly surprised by the level of political and social naivety displayed in your posts.

However, you have the chance to redeem yourself by answering a straightforward question. In your world of no social security, how will those who are unable to meet their own needs because of disability, be provided for?

The problem with a Social Security less world, is not the problem of the free market, or the problem of a Social Security LESS word. This is the exact problem with Democratic forms of Socialism.


Social Security is an inefficient wealth redistribution system that is particularly imprisoning the coming Generation. What socialist know is that once a system like SS gets embedded into a society it is almost impossible to unwind it. Money is extracted from employee and employer over a lifetime and even in the lying words of our government saved into an account for use for our retirement. Over people's lives they pay this tax, and cannot invest or use this money in any way. Many people are also lulled into thinking all is and will be well because of this government program so they are reluctant to pull the enslaving socialist weed,

What DC is inelegantly trying to say is that since this weed has become embedded, he would want back the money that was taken from him over the past 50 years that he could not have invested and saved for his retirement... then he would like out of SS.. I mentioned that I would vote to repeal it, with the understanding that any such bill would either require some drastic sacrifices from me to save my children and grand children and/or require a complicated unwinding for all of us who have planned our lives around it.

You will see me often go head to head with wacky conspiracy theorists, on this board, because there are many crazy conspiracies out there, but this IS a conspiracy by socialist to lead us step by step carefully down that path to Socialist hell.

Now you slam DC for not giving what you think are coherent answers to your subtle questions, but you blow by and never answer mine!


I will repeat 1 simple question and see if you can answer it.

Why must a net of benefits be thrown over everybody to help the needy?

I have stated before that I think there are better private answers to charity than government, but if you think government should care for the needy why must it be with programs that take care of everybody?

Regards,

George Clay

I never said a net of benefits needs to be thrown over everyone in order to help the needy. Where on earth did you get that idea?
I know people who are crippled and struggle through each day in great pain and discomfort. They receive benefits to help them cope with life. I don't get those benefits because thankfully I'm not in that position. So no net has been thrown over me, unless, of course, I become disabled myself.
My old bishop contracted motor neurone disease and became very disabled before he died. It was right and proper that he benefitted from what you call the net.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, unless you are suggesting that such people are just left to die.

The net applies to everyone, but only as required. Basically, it's an insurance. That's why it's called National Insurance here. Our contributions are the premiums.

[David13]

Dc, just admit it mate, I've got your argument on the run.
Your social security-less utopia is clearly exposed as a deceptive sham.

What I find strange is that you are a member of a church which consistently practices what you would describe as socialist principles!

All in all I admit to being thoroughly surprised by the level of political and social naivety displayed in your posts.

However, you have the chance to redeem yourself by answering a straightforward question. In your world of no social security, how will those who are unable to meet their own needs because of disability, be provided for?

Robin Hood
You keep telling lies like that and you might be struck by lightening. It has happened before.

You plainly don't understand English. I never said I wanted to abolish social security. Stop telling lies. It's not good for your eternal spirit.

The church IS NOT, HAS NEVER BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE A SOCIALIST CHURCH.

Right there is the proof that you have no knowledge of the scripture whatsoever.

Where in scripture does it say we are to mooch off the government? Where government is to be the end all and be all of our lives?

NOWHERE!

In fact, in direct contradiction to that, we are admonished to be self sufficient.

Robin Hood, tell all the lies you like, you don't understand scripture at all, nor your own mind. Look in the mirror. It will shock you.

dc