RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
There Goes Another One (of McSwine’s “Conservative Credentials”)…
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in RINOs, Useless Swine6:02 PM
We should’ve known better than to ever heap any sort of praise in the general direction of McVain (R-Own Asshole), but when he spoke out forcefully against making those of us NOT taking loans we can’t possibly pay back to purchase homes we can’t possibly afford have to bail out the ones who’ve been living high on the hog at a discount until the bubble burst, it seemed like the right thing to do.
We should’ve known better.
A few days later, the “blatherick” was busy speaking in favor of “limited government intervention” and then, one short week after that, he’s now full-out, ball-to-the-wall, in for a penny, in for a pound, aggressively gung ho for ripping our wallets out, emptying them and then handing over our money to the simian freeloaders.
Damn, he’s making even Fuckface Kerry’s flip-flopping look like the steely determination of an unflappable elder statesman. Perhaps the Vietnamese let him take the footwear of two battalions of VC home with him when they let him out?
Oh, and apparently he’s not as hot on the 2nd Amendment as some of you would like to delude yourselves into thinking either.
So that, Idiotarian Gorebecile hobbling of our economy to protect against the fairy tale of Glowbull Wormening, the Incumbent Protection Act (or Shred the First Act) etc. etc. etc.
What exactly IS it that makes him different from the two Dhimmibulbs running against him? Because near as we can tell, his talking points are indistinguishable from theirs.
With the difference that they’ve at least stuck to theirs, which is more than one can expect from the Blatherick, obviously.
Just get November over with already, so we can hit the reset button.
Entries (RSS)
Well, I’m still sticking with my choice…
April 11th, 2008 at 6:21 PMUsing
Most elections, after the partisan team-mentality “rooting” sets in, I silently cheer the Republican’s words and wince when the Democrat says something.
This election, it’s the exact opposite.
McCain says something, I wince. “Do I really want to vote for McCain.” Obama says something, my resolve hardens.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:23 PMUsing
I saw that Obama statement earlier. I’m from a small town in Pennsylvania and it’s the kind of high falootin’ bigotry I expect from a crooked, slimy city slicker politician. Especially one who had his ass kissed through pretty much his whole adult life.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:31 PMUsing
Pick your poison! I guess it doesn’t matter all that much. We ‘re going down the shitter anyways but I still refuse to turn the mil over to either the Beast or the Obamarat.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:42 PMUsing
Yeah, I’m from suburban Philly but I’ve been around, which is why it really caught my eye. Just like Howlin Howard: “I don’t understand these people, so let me think out loud about them.”
April 11th, 2008 at 6:51 PMUsing
Anyone know why the Bark™ is disabled?
April 11th, 2008 at 6:53 PMUsing
He’s already broken his Constitutional Oath big time. Further discussion is pointless.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:07 PMUsing
It simple really. I’m going to vote my conscious and write in “Newt Gingrich.” Personally, I’d rather have Obama or Cankles than McCain. At least with a donk in the White House, the Republicans might actually sack up and try to stop most of their leftist agenda out of simple partisan politics.
If McCain is elected, however, then the RINOs and gutless Republicans will rubberstamp McCain’s leftist agenda. So, if we’re gonna have a leftist in the White House, better it be someone the Republicans actually might oppose.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:48 PMUsing
I guess the biggest difference is that he can die in office early and if he has a conservative for VP, we could get a decent leader there… That and I can’t pull for Shrill or the big eared bigot in the election so the dems are out.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:59 PMUsing
Condi is supposedly in the hunt for Veep.
Make of that what you will.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:08 PMUsing
Check out this guy Neil Boortz it was suggested to me by Hoghead that he might be a good candidate for the Libertarians or even a new grassroots party. Couldn;t hurt for yall to check him out. No he’s not currently running but I like his style.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:01 PMUsing
Boortz has consistently said he would not run, I believe he uses the word “unelectable” when he talks about it. I like his style as well.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:09 AMUsing
LC Beaker
That is exactly the argument I have been using since Iowa.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:13 AMUsing
I know times are grim my fellow LCs but let us remember who’s on our side and more specifically who’s not.
General Petraeus? The man who somehow became a general without ever seeing combat? The same guy who wrote that “open letter” asking our troops to stop being so damn loyal to each other and start ratting each other out? I’d rather eat vomit than support him for interim military governor. Ideally we’d have Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper or failing him General Honore.
And Gingrich? It was bad enough when he let them run him out of town. It was bad enough when he became Shillary’s lapdog for Communized Medicine. But now he’s about to star side by side with the Gorecle to advance the myth of glowbull wormening. NJNBFN my good LCs, njnbfn.
Though the skies grow dark let us not hitch our wagons to Grade B RINOs simply for the fact they’re not Grade A. Personally I plan to continue with Plan B, buy ammo. Now that Tancredo is official out of the race, my current write in vote will be going to Bill Balsamico.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:09 AMUsing
Write in Fred!, damnit!!!!!
I just got a letter in the mail from Senator Mitch McConnell. It’s a New Republican Agenda Survey!! It’s more of a donation request for the NSRC, if you ask me. There are 18 somewhat important questions on it.
1) Should we continue taking the War on Terror to the terrorists, capturing their leaders and freezing financial assets where ever possible? YES
Should Republicans in the senate stop the Democrat majority from raising taxes? Emphatic YES
2) Should we continue to demand that north Korea and Iran dismantle their nuclear missile programs? YES
3) Should the Republican party do everything in our power to stop Democrats from undermining our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and make 100% sure they have the tools they need to get the job done? YES
4) Should we stop the democrats from repealing key provisions of the Patriot Act that allows intelligence agencies to share information? YES(MY OPINION ANYWAY)
5) Should the FBI be permitted to wiretap phones belonging to people who are in contact with known terrorists or terrorist sympathizers overseas? YES
6) Do you support further measures, such as a security fence, unmanned aerial drones and satellite imaging to stop illegal aliens from sneaking across our border with Mexico? Emphatic YES
7) What should happen to the millions of illegal aliens who are currently in our country? In a word .. DEPORTATION!No compromise what-so-ever!
9) Should President Bush’s tax cuts be made permanent? YES
10) Do you support serious “earmark reform” to prevent members of congress from wasting your tax dollars on unnecessary pork-barrel projects? YES
11) Should Republican senators unite to block liberals from passing radical new job-killing environmental regulations? Undecided … not exactly sure what laws are being referred to here.
12)Should we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? YES
13)Should we fight Democrats when they force wage and price controls on our free market economy? Not really sure about this one…. anyone?
14) Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage between a man and a woman? NO
The reason is simple here. There is no danger to a “traditional marriage” between those of opposite sex if same sex marriages are legalized. Marriage is a legal contract between two people issued by the state. That is why the ceremony contains the words lawfully wedded. The religious aspects of it should be left to the church and not the government!
15) Should we stop the Democrat majority from approving only activist judges? YES
16) Should we prevent Democrats from raising the Social Security Payroll Tax? UNDECIDED Just do not know the exact implications of this.
17) In general, do you support the Second Amendment rights under the Constitution that allow law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms? Emphatic YES
18) Should we continue to fight for medical liability and tort reform to get rid of junk lawsuits that enrich trial lawyers while hurting innocent citizens? YES
What do you guys think?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:51 AMUsing
It will be a slower swirl down the bowl. Hopefully slow enough to turn around next election. Maybe we can save the nation in 2010 if it is sufficiently obvious, maybe 2012. Or maybe it IS time for the reset button. We shall see. I still say, with the modern weapons, communications, tactics, and intel, we could clean up this whole mess before the rest of the world even saw it coming. Purge the traitors, clean up the media, and be done with it. A day, two at the most.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:00 AMUsing
And CF, #s 11 & 13 are a solid yes. We have oil. Enough to tell the rest of the world FO. The libs are worried about “protecting” some small insignifigant creature that lives ONLY THERE! If the creature was worth saving, there’d be more of them for 11. Amongst a myriad of other bs they’ve forced on us. And for 13, they’re restricting the very capitalism that makes America America. They need to stfu and move somewhere else. 14? Ehn. Whatever. It’s bullshit anyway. Other than in the instance of children and property division, as well as tracing blood lineage.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:09 AMUsing
I know times are grim my fellow LCs but let us remember who’s on our side and more specifically who’s not.
Excuse me? I am sorry but that is a lie.
He has seen combat many times.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:56 AMUsing
Boortz rocks. the only thing I disagree with him on is Drugs.
For those of you who cant vote for any of the big three, may I suggest voting third party (libertarian or Greens). NO, I dont think they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, BUT, if youre not going to vote anyway, a vote for 3rd party, if it exceeds 5% of voters, insures THREE choices next time (2012) and allows the 3rd party to get Federal campaign funds. It just might add some competition to /between REP/DEM, and if you werent voting anyway, it cant hurt.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:17 AMUsing
ShadowFox,
I’m throwing the Bullshit flag on this one!
Take a look at that bling on Petraeus’ upper left chest. I notice ribbons for Bonze Star, Silver Star, I think I see a Purple Heart, Legion of Merit, and Army Commendation, and several other ribbons I don’t recognize. Some of them are for meritorious service, but others are awarded only during active combat.. Several have itty bitty stars on them indicating multiple awards. Now notice that pretty little blue thingy up at the very top. Do you know what that might be? Take a guess. Do the letters C-I- & B ring a bell? Do you know what that black patch on his right shoulder is, or what it means? The one with the eagle head on it.
Next question for you SF. Have you seen combat? Or been deployed? Heck, have you been awarded an NDSM ribbon? Do you actually intend to do any of that after you graduate from high school?
You had some perfectly good insights about Gingrich, but then you had to go and spoil it.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:06 AMUsing
I say NO, taxes need to be lowered far below where they are. The government taking over 50% of ones earnings is still way over the line.
As for things being “grim” not for me. I’m making more money (if the governemnt did not steal it) than any time in my life.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:10 PMUsing
IF what I heard about Petraeus regarding his never having seen combat was wrong, I’m willing to reconsider that part of it. I remember that wherever I heard it from at the time was a trusted source. It does not however undo the reality of the letter he wrote asking troops to nark on each other. The move was disgusting and a bone thrown to CAIR and other such groups.
Unfortunatly the closest I got was Operation Take the Press Heat Off Lewinsky, aka Desert Fox. Yes, I was with the 24th MEU. Yes, I do have a NSDM ribbon along with my Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. I served 4 years active duty with the USMC.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:11 PMUsing
what an irrelevant point, lots of generals who led combat troops have never seen combat. Do the names Eisenhower, and Maxwell Taylor, and James Gavin ring a bell? I put Petraeus in the same league with Eisenhower….he is the greatest strategic and political general we’ve had since Ike.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:36 PMUsing
ShadowFox,
Then I withdraw that particular implication and offer for it an apology. Four years USMC active is good enough for me, even without close combat. But it should also have taught you hw to read a uniform.
As for ratting out other troops… That is a complicated issue, which could be interpreted or fulfilled in a number of different ways. Troops who engage in true crimes - to include subversion while on active duty (IVAW are you listening?) should be turned in. Rape and gratuitous assault (if they every actually happened) likewise. Collateral damage and/or casualties is, or should not be, a crime. Thomas Scott Beauchamp’s lies might not be criminal, but certainly deserve a blanket party. Considering that yoru source about Petraeus not having seen combat is obviously bogus, I have reservations about what else he may have said, and the contesxt in which I might have been said.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:51 PMUsing
What a choice. McCain or Obama (assuming the Clinton machine doesn’t end up stealing the nomination). I am no fan of McCain, but everytime Obama opens his mouth I come closer to holding my nose and voting for the man. What’s a conservative to do…
April 12th, 2008 at 3:14 PMUsing
I still like the idea of a purge. We have the intel. We have the comm, the intel, the weapons, and the tactics to clean up all this shit before the rest of the world knows what’s happening. Then we cleanse the media. One day, two at the most. It’s fucking time. This has gone so far beyond a joke…
April 12th, 2008 at 6:42 PMUsing
Oh, btw. 20 years, NDSM VN-DS. I fought for the America I THOUGHT was real. I’d really love to see that truly be. Petraeus for Military Governor? I could live with that. So long as he remembers HIS oath.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:45 PMUsing
I’m sorry but I cannot accept that thing about a military governor. It just doesnt sit right with me. As an active duty soldier if that occurs I would be patrolling the streets of some American city or another. Do you have any idea how …….uncomfortable that would be for me or anyone else wearing the uniform? I love this country, but I will set down my uniform if that should occur. Some people here have said they could “live with that”. I can’t, and will not allow a military dictatorship to arize in this nation of ours and I will fight tooth and nail to restore our great democratic republic……or die trying.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:26 PMUsing
Entirely up to you SL. I’m talking interim to control the treason so prevalent. I’ll put my uniform back on for this. You didn’t pay close attention to the OATH statement I made, did you? Constitutionally, every citizen should stand up for such a thing. INTERIM. Re-establish a sound government, following the law of the land and not trying to destroy it. Then turn it over.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:44 PMUsing
LC cmblake
Still its a dangerous path, and I remember my oath being to the Constitution of the United States. I don’t recall anything in that document about military governors, interim or otherwise. It’s a very dangerous course. So I would be breaking my oath by allowing such a trend towards military dictatorship and that’s exactly what your so called interim government would become. Why would you believe that someone given that much power would ever cede it back to the people? I doubt it and thus if I remained loyal to such a government I would be breaking my oath to the Constitution.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:11 PMUsing
Oath, brother, follow the oath. This nation was founded in almost such a fashion. And it is the minimization of bloodshed I seek. The faster and cleaner it is, the happier I’d be with it. I did not say military DICTATORSHIP, just temporary governance. This IS NORTH America, not South.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:47 PMUsing
Nor with me.
Unless the alternative is the soul-killing, eternal, cradle-to-grave Hell that is socialism, in which case I’ll take anything, ANYTHING AT ALL instead.
And like it too.
Never again. Lived that once. To those of you lucky enough to not know what it’s like and still harbor infantile delusions about “how bad can it be?”, good on you. Go shit in your diapers, infants.
NEVER AGAIN!
I’ll suck the cock of Satan before I’ll endure one more day under socialism, and I’ll kill every living, breathing soul on the planet from the age of 1 to 101 without remorse before I’ll let it happen.
The End.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:38 PMUsing
I think about it this way,
Whom do I trust with my wallet the most?
Hussein?
Hussy?
McABSCAM?
Or General Petraeus?
(I think somebody earlier dropped the name of Gen. Honoré? He’d make a fantastic Regional Governor.)
April 12th, 2008 at 10:06 PMUsing
I respect that.
But keep in mind that allowing socialism, and if you know what socialism is you will know that I’m right, is an even worse betrayal of the Constitution than anything else.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The entire Bill of Rights.
None of these are rights under socialism.
I would destroy the entire planet to avoid socialism if I had to.
I’ve lived under the tyranny of socialism, and there is nothing, NOTHING I won’t do to avoid my children having to live under it for a second themselves.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:07 PMUsing
Sire #32.
You’ve lived it, I’ve studied it. We can debate who gets to pull the trigger and who reloads the magazines; but really its the same to me. Reserve me a space in your bunker.
The Alamo is a state of mind.
If we know what’s good for us, I think we better plan on saving a firing position for Princess Natasha too.
F.E.T.E.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:07 PMUsing
Indeed, preservation of the Constitution may require that TEMPORARY Military Governance you so detest the thought of SL. How many times does it have to be repeated? We go in, we clear the traitors, we hold the nation organised until leadership can be elected BY THE PEOPLE to replace the traitorous vermin removed, and the MG passes the keys over. The Constitution is followed scrupulously from that point. Judges who use foreign law as example for application are removed. American Nation, American Law.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:01 PMUsing
The average lifespan of an American male who hasn’t spent five years of torture and deprivation is 74.2 years. On January 20, 2009 John McCain will be 72.5 years old. And he’s an old 72. and a cancer survivor. I say his VP choice is CRITICAL, since he could check out at any time.
Who could conservatives rally around for VP???
April 13th, 2008 at 1:19 PMUsing
Mitt Romney?????
http://www.unitethegop.com/
April 13th, 2008 at 1:25 PMUsing
Charlie Crist ??
http://budtheblogger.....ident.html
April 13th, 2008 at 1:29 PMUsing
Cannon Fodder @ #15:
Question # 13: Should we fight Democrats when they try to force wage and price controls on our free market economy?
Not only yes, but Hell Yes! The free market, if left alone will establish a supply-demand equilibrium that most everyone is happy with. If the price of a good or service becomes too high more competitors will enter the market expanding the supply and forcing the price downward. Either that, or customers will stop buying the good or service, and the supplier will have to get the price back down to the equilibrium price, or he will be left with warehouses full of goods he can’t sell.
Nixon tried wage and price controls to fight inflation. It didn’t work, because as soon as the controls came off, prices skyrocketed with wages lagging.
You might also read the Constitution. That Constitution does not give the Government the right, responsibility or power to control wages or prices.
Think it through: the Dems would want to increase wages and keep prices steady, thereby trying to buy votes. But, if a manufacturer can’t make a decent profit, he will either stop manufacturing all together, or move the manufacturing process overseas. This is exactly what happened with most of our textile industry, and with most of our electronics industry. The cost of labor became too high, along with the cost of bureaucratic compliance, and the jobs left this country.
What is a “decent” profit? That would be the amount of profit necessary to pay all of the taxes the company is required to pay plus the amount necessary to fund research and development to expand the business, plus enough to pay the investors at least as much return on investment as they could earn from a savings account or Certificate of Deposit, plus enough to pay the interest on any bonds or other debt instruments.
Question # 16:
April 13th, 2008 at 4:16 PMShould we prevent the Democrats from raising the Social Security Payroll Tax?
Again, not only yes, but Hell Yes!
The entire Social Security system is a huge Ponzi scheme. If it weren’t the government perpetrating it, someone would be in jail. Given the current demographics, in a few more years, just to fund what Congress has already promised to pay out, will require a 50% payroll tax. Right now that payroll tax is 15%. A 50% payroll tax would mean 25% right off the top of your paycheck just for social security! And that will be on top of your Federal Withholding Tax and your State Income Tax (and City Income Tax in certain areas), and your various Sales taxes and property taxes, etc. Do you really think we need to pay more in taxes? Check out the book “The Coming Revolution in Social Security” by A. Haeworth Robinson. He was the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, so he knows what he is talking about when it comes to Social Security.
Using
DAMMIT!!! Every time McLeftie opens his mouth I’m driven more and more towards writing in a vote for a fuckin’ cartoon character! What a PATHETIC situation to be in!
Finger… getting… ever… closer… … must… control… primal… rage…
April 13th, 2008 at 5:02 PMThe only REAL choice for CINC - Unfortunately.
Using
Screwed-up the link…
April 13th, 2008 at 5:05 PMThe only real choice for CINC… unfortunately.
Using
:em98: :em95: :em01: :em99: :em01: :em99: :em03:
April 13th, 2008 at 5:23 PMUsing
I find myself busting my ass, trying to make sure I can pay this damn house off before I die. As I look at my daughter, twenty-five, and tell her sadly that my generation, via social security, is eating our young, mortgaging their future. Remaining why I want to leave her with a place to live at least. I was left nothing save my two hands, a strong back and determination. But I don’t know anybody that isn’t getting older. I do know this, pondering the choices this election, my gut spends half the time knotted up, the other half queasy…….
April 13th, 2008 at 5:27 PMUsing
A.) McCain has NO substantive conservative credentials. He will likely not nominate constructionist judges because he will follow the Senate tradition of nominating like for like. The liberals will leave the SCOTUS first and McCain will replace them with more libs. His view on the war is not unlike millions of other conservative and moderate Americans so he gets some points for that but his views are not credential worthy, his views on taxes are center/left (cf. impact of McCain/Lieberman).
B.) McCain is a loathsome traitor to the Reagan revolution (does he not claim to be a Reagan foot soldier?).
C.) I’m like Coulter; if McCain nominates a conservative running mate then I will vote for him and (though I don’t wish him ill) hope he croaks right after he takes his oath of office. Romney is a logical choice, JC Watts is the ideal choice.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:52 PMUsing
#45
You watch. He is going to shit in our eye again! He believes we Reagan Conservatives are over a barrel and will vote for him just to keep Obamaprophet or Hillabitch out of the WH. Well, THIS Reagan Conservative is MAD as HELL and I’m NOT going to TAKE IT anymore! I am going to deliver my small fraction of a bitch slap to the RNC by voting Fudd. If I vote for McSprain, I’ll feel like I permanently blighted my soul, kinda like how one might feel if forced to choose between having sex with his sister or his grandmother.
Not me. I’ll take the 3rd option.
Fudd ‘08
April 13th, 2008 at 11:20 PMUsing
If you’re going to do a protest vote, I’d still take a little time and think about which way you’re going to throw it.
The last thing we need is for a party like the Greens to qualify for Federal campaign funding. Do you really want to give Gore any other hope for running for Pres. again?
April 13th, 2008 at 11:49 PMUsing
I agree SoCal. There is yet time to put together a meaningful write-in campaign for someone like Thompson (again, to show protest, not that he would win). It needs to be perceived by the GOP as a massive rejection of their RINOness.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:41 AMUsing
Azygos,
Bush’s tax cuts being made permanent doesn’t mean that they can’t be lowered. This question is just about the fact that the cuts are about to expire and the Dems have every intent to let them do so.
Lone Star Yankee,
What’s a conservative to do?? Write in FRED! damnit!
I kinda get the wage and price control thing now. The real pisser is that every time the government raises the minimum wage, Prices go up at an astounding rate!
As for Social Security, I remember in the late 70’s or early 80’s a teacher of mine saying that the SSA was the only government agency with a surplus of money. Then some time later I remember hearing somewhere that Congress wanted to allocate the surplus elsewhere. Was I eating to many paint chips as a child or is that right?
If it’s right it is Congress that fucked the Social Security system up. But I do understand not wanting the taxes to go up.
I remember my father saying, when I was young, that he wished that he could opt-out of Social Security and put that money into an IRA or something. He said he would be able to live better of of it that way.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:41 AMUsing
[...] that initiate e-mail contact then don’t have the brains to automatically accept your reply. - Emperor Misha I gives another reason to not vote for McCain (I do have to put a language warning on this one; follow at [...]
April 14th, 2008 at 8:28 AMUsing
Hmmm. I bet we wish there was a real conservative running right now. Someone pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-constitution, supporting real reduced spending and cutting taxes, with a side-benefit of ending the welfare state, Social inSecurity, and open borders?
I guess it’s too bad Ron Paul is so “unelectable” and kooky that we shut him out of the nomination. At least McCain can get elected, even if he is a loser liberal jackboot. After all, an “R” that can win can stand for anything. Just ask Arlen Specter. In the end, it’s the win that counts, not the principles, right?
Or not. :em98:
April 14th, 2008 at 10:03 AMUsing
Ron Paul is kind of the polar opposite of McCain. McCain is wrong on all the things that Paul is right on while Paul is wrong on the ONE THING (and really the most important thing) that McCain happens to be right on.
If Paul had a practical perspective on the war on Islamist fundamentalism, he might have had a chance at the nomination. Although, given the front loading of liberal states in the GOP primaries, Paul would have never gotten the nomination any way.
Paul needs to stay in congress and keep fighting the good fight. He is not, IMHO, presidential material unfortunately.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:20 AMUsing
Cannon Fodder
You’re pretty much on the money. Social Security was supposed to be kept separate, but then Congress noticed a huge pile of money sitting around that they couldn’t legally touch. So, they passed a law, “borrowed” the money from the Social Security Trustfund, and replaced it with some IOUs. (It would be like your running out of money on Tuesday and “magically” making some more money by slipping an IOU into your checkbook and treating it like a deposit.) Once Congress discovered they could do this to the Trust Fund, then they decided they could arbitrarily increase benefits in order to buy votes from old people, with no regard to how it would be paid for later.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:45 AMIn the beginning, Social Security was supposed to be a supplement to folk’s retirement. At the time of implementation, the program was actuarily sound. The SSA figured that people would only collect for about 2 years, then die. Unfortunately for Social Security, lifespan lengthened. Neither SSA nor Congress modified the age at which folks could start collecting social security. Even now, a recipient has withdrawn all of the money that was extorted from him plus the interest it collected within 2 years after they start collecting. Everything that is payed out to him/her after that is from their children’s and grand-children’t “contributions”.
Also in the beginning, Social Security was a voluntary program. When there weren’t enough people volunteering for the program, Congress decided to make participation mandatory. After all, the yokels couldn’t be trusted to look after themselves.
Using
“>
April 14th, 2008 at 1:17 PMUsing
Ogrrre,
Well, I guess if Congress had kept their fingers out of the cookie jar it wouldn’t be so bad as it is today though.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:31 PMUsing
Yup, O’bamy is right, desperate folks, and many many others DO cling to religion and their guns.
AND SO: There’s no desperate folks in he metropolitan parts of the country that cling to their religion and guns.
BWWAW HAWHAW!
OOooh, man.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:46 PM(Whizzit everytime I read about him I feel like I need a shower?)
Using
Cannon Fodder, while it wouldn’t be as bad, it would still be bad because of Congress’ promising more and more without adhering to actuarial prinicples. Of course, if they had kept the program actuarially sound, not a one of them would have been re-elected. They would either had to have not increased benefits, or raised payroll taxes to more than double where they are today, or would have had to have adjusted the age at when the benefits kicked in, or a combination of the three.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:32 PMIf an insurance company had designed an annuity the way the government designed Social Security, the company would have gone into receivership and the corporate officers would have been in prison long ago.
Using
Cheapshot, when dealing with, or reading about Obamessiah, or any marxist-socialist for that matter, one needs a shower because you’ve been rolling with pigshit. I was going to say “rolling with swine”, but I’ve raised some pigs, and as a general rule, they were cleaner and smarter than marxist-socialists.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:35 PMUsing
Isn’t wackjob Cynthia McKinney running for Pres. on the green party?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:06 PMUsing
Oh, you better! I am very versatile, as far as weapons go, but the ideal setup would be: an armored Humvee, with an MK-19 (ya gotta love a belt-fed grenade launcher!), a 240B, an AK-47 for me to get up-close and personal to the enemy, as well as a couple of Uzis and a Katyusha just for fun. A big box of Claymore mines would be delightful, if y’all wanna watch commies and Hajis dance the Funky Chicken.
And vodka. Lots and lots of vodka…
April 14th, 2008 at 8:02 PM:em03:
Using
anything that depletes demo votes is good for me
April 14th, 2008 at 8:04 PMUsing
Marry me Natasha…………………………….
April 14th, 2008 at 8:05 PMUsing
As an aside, I wonder if I could order an ACU-patterned miniskirt… And get taller combat boots. They’d look totally bad-ass if they went up to just below the knee. /snicker :em02:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:07 PMUsing
Bad idea. I am an anarchist and a spoiled brat who calls her cast-iron frying pan “The Persuader”. :em41: :em99:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:22 PMUsing
I can live with that. And btw, try Titos vodka. Absolutely THE best vodka I’ve ever consumed. And I’ve consumed a fair bit. Love your uniform idea!
April 14th, 2008 at 11:28 PMUsing