# Elizabeth Warren wants a one time payment for SS



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It would be a one time 3.9% payment funded by closing a loop hole in deferred retirement options for CEOs.

What do you think? I like it. 

http://www.thenation.com/article/eli...ergency-boost/


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

You don't fix socialism with more socialism.

But, nothing like buying favor from voters with their own money.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

The link doesn't work for me.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The link doesn't work for me.


Oops. It doesn't work for me either. I tried to find a less controversial site, but I guess Mother Jones will have to do. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/elizabeth-warren-wants-give-seniors-raise


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> It would be a one time 3.9% payment funded by closing a loop hole in deferred retirement options for CEOs.
> 
> What do you think? I like it.
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/article/eli...ergency-boost/


Don't like it. If the formula's bad, change the formula. Don't bastardize the system. SS recipients are already getting a raise this year.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

If you type Elizabeth warren social security into the search area the article will come up. It's an intetesting idea and an adroit political move to tie the proposals together. Not subsidizing CEO retirements is a good thing. It would be difficult to do, especially in an election year, without outcries of punishing the rich ringing forth. Using the money to give to those who might yell loudest against taxing the rich blunts their outrage. Who doesn't think grandma is deserving? Politics at its best? Worst?


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

If I read this right, she proposes a 3.9% raise in SS benefits for 1 year, then it goes back to normal. That translates to about $40 a month for me. Won't put me on easy street.

The article says that the candidates are lumping SS retirement benefits in with entitlement programs. It ain't so. I paid into SS for my all of my life and am owed that money.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I don't really know how I feel about this, because I haven't looked into it enough. But it looks like some of you still need to learn what socialism actually is.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Deacon Mike said:


> SS recipients are already getting a raise this year.


They are? Would have a link or source for that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It's a one time (this year only) lump sum payment. 

And there was no COLA increase for SS recipients this year. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...crease-for-social-security-recipients-in-2016


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nimrod said:


> If I read this right, she proposes a 3.9% raise in SS benefits for 1 year, then it goes back to normal. That translates to about $40 a month for me. Won't put me on easy street.
> 
> The article says that the candidates are lumping SS retirement benefits in with entitlement programs. It ain't so. I paid into SS for my all of my life and am owed that money.


The far left leaning article ties SS and entitlements together to make it appear the Evil Republicans are trying to cut SS when they are not. Good politics, horrible honesty.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I don't really know how I feel about this, because I haven't looked into it enough. But it looks like some of you still need to learn what socialism actually is.


Taking money from some and giving to others who didn't earn it. 

From one of the may definitions of "Socialism": (bold added for emphasis) 



> .......production and *distribution of **goods and services** would be managed by the government* rather than being based on market forces, which can fluctuate and lead to recessions in capitalist economies.


So a program, managed by the government, that takes money from some, to give to others, is not socialism how?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It would be a one time 3.9% payment funded by closing a loop hole in deferred retirement options for CEOs.
> 
> What do you think? I like it.
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/article/eli...ergency-boost/


I think it is class warfare politics at its finest. Throw a one time bone to granny to raise tax revenue for x,y, or z


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I think it is class warfare politics at its finest. Throw a one time bone to granny to raise tax revenue for x,y, or z


It's not raising anything. A loophole for corporate tax exemption for performance pay packages will be closed for CEOs.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

nchobbyfarm said:


> They are? Would have a link or source for that?





Irish Pixie said:


> And there was no COLA increase for SS recipients this year.


The result of the formula would be a reduction. There will be not be a reduction. Therefore, they are being prepaid part of the next COLA this year. That's a raise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It would be a one time 3.9% payment funded by closing a loop hole in deferred retirement options for CEOs.
> 
> What do you think? I like it.
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/article/eli...ergency-boost/


Repaired link.

www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-give-seniors-an-emergency-boost



Nimrod said:


> That translates to about $40 a month for me. Won't put me on easy street.


I'll still take it.

But I wonder if we'll get to keep it. With no raise they can't raise the Medicare Part B premium, but they could raise it with a COLA.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Not enough info there to form an informed opinion. What is this "CEO loophole" they are talking about closing??? And what is the logic of linking SS recipients to CEO pay? Just something that sounded "fair"? 

I fail to understand why SS and Medicare tax get cut off at $113k in salary. Anything you make over that is exempt. Right now there is a temporary tax for Medicare to a higher limit. But it would make a lot more sense to lower the percentages taken for SS and MC and collect them on all the salary earned, period.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> I fail to understand why SS and Medicare tax get cut off at $113k in salary. Anything you make over that is exempt.


Because of the maximum Social Security benefit. The maximum benefit at retirement age is $2663 (can be higher with later retirement). So it doesn't make sense to continue to tax people after they've contributed enough to get the maximum.

There seems to be a movement afoot to change SS & Medicare to be less of a self-supporting insurance plan and more of a social giveaway plan. I wouldn't like to see that. I like the idea that I paid for what I'm getting. It gives me good reason to feel justified in getting the benefits. If it was a social giveaway plan then the government could logically end it at any time and we wouldn't have a lot to complain about.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Not enough info there to form an informed opinion. What is this "CEO loophole" they are talking about closing??? And what is the logic of linking SS recipients to CEO pay? Just something that sounded "fair"?


I think the link said the 3.9% is the same pay increase the CEOs gave themselves, and the loophole is tax exemption on performance pay.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> And what is the logic of linking SS recipients to CEO pay?


What's the logic behind CEOs getting a larger COLA than I get?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What's the logic behind CEOs getting a larger COLA than I get?


 The CEO's get their compensation from private companies, not government fiat. We do not live in a Socialist society. It is my firm hope that we never will.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The CEO's get their compensation from private companies, not government fiat. We do not live in a Socialist society. It is my firm hope that we never will.


My compensation came from 15% of my pay being contributed to the program for over 40 years. I paid a lot more in than I've received so far.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What's the logic behind CEOs getting a larger COLA than I get?


The two things are unrelated. There is no tie between them, nor should there be.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> My compensation came from 15% of my pay being contributed to the program over 40 years. I paid a lot more in than I've received so far.


 
What does one have to do with the other? If you don't like how SS is run, I would suggest that you do the right thing and call for its destruction.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not raising anything. A loophole for corporate tax exemption for performance pay packages will be closed for CEOs.


Please explain what you mean.

If closing the loophole doesn't raise tax revenue, why close it?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Taking money from some and giving to others who didn't earn it.
> 
> From one of the may definitions of "Socialism": (bold added for emphasis)
> 
> ...


So then your argument is that the military is socialism? It is a service. Should "the services" be a private enterprise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


> S*ocialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production*,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[8] "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] *social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.*


We are a Representative Democracy with a free market CAPITALIST economy where very little economic production is "socially owned." We have some social programs. We aren't remotely close to a socialist state. Social Security solved a problem. Like everything else humanity has ever done, free market or big bad government, it has become a problem. Getting rid of it recreates the original problem, though.

Personally I'd love to know how many of those hardcore social security haters accurately predicted inflation and managed to save the correct amount of money for their retirement. I'm guessing not many, since your paychecks in 1980 look like spare change now. Might have looked like good savings back then...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Please explain what you mean.
> 
> If closing the loophole doesn't raise tax revenue, why close it?


I don't know, I'm not a tax expert. 

"The Massachusetts Democrat will introduce legislation Thursday that would provide roughly $580 extra per senior next year â an increase of about 3.9 percent. *Warren would fund the change by eliminating provisions used to shield corporate compensation from taxes.* Her office said the legislation would cost an estimated $40 billion." 

Apparently, (again, I'm not a tax expert) the money would be diverted to SS, the one time lump sum payment would go out, and the rest would be added to the Social Security fund. 

Can you figure it out and explain it better, please?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> My compensation came from 15% of my pay being contributed to the program over 40 years. I paid a lot more in than I've received so far.


You exaggerate. The current SS rate is 12.4 %. Forty years ago it was less than that. http://www.tax-atlas.com/historical-fica-tax-rates/

Let's say Average Joe paid in SS for 40 years at the current rate of 12.4% and the average income of $50k per year. That's $248k. At age 65, Average Joe draws SS at $1750 per month. He's only paid in about 11 years worth, so if he lives past 77, he is being subsidized. 

And the same holds true of the higher earners. If they live a long life, which you would reasonably expect someone with a higher income to do, they will draw out more than they paid in, too. That's why I think the percentages for SS and MC should be lowered, and every dollar of salary should be subject to the tax. By lowering the %, you effectively give a tax break to the lower income brackets, also it helps the employers not be penalized for providing high paying positions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Let's say Average Joe paid in SS for 40 years at the current rate of 12.4% and the average income of $50k per year. That's $248k. At age 65, Average Joe draws SS at $1750 per month. He's only paid in about 11 years worth, so if he lives past 77, he is being subsidized.


Yes, but not by tax payers. 77 is pretty close to the average life expectancy, which means that a lot of people who paid into the system died before reaching that age. If we live longer then we get to use money that wasn't distributed to people because they died younger. That demonstrates the insurance component of SS & Medicare.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> So then your argument is that the military is socialism? It is a service. Should "the services" be a private enterprise?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> 
> ...


The military is not a service. It is one of the few Constitutionally founded obligations of the federal government. I see nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to be in the insurance business, the marriage business, the education business, the service industry, or many other things it has its tentacles in.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Yes, but not by tax payers. 77 is pretty close to the average life expectancy, which means that a lot of people died before reaching that age. If we live longer then we get to use money that wasn't distributed to people because they died younger. That demonstrates the insurance component of SS & Medicare.


Unfortunately, yes it is the taxpayers because our politicians spent the money. An insurance company would never be permitted to operate on IOUs like the govt! The regulators would have shut them down a long time ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I see nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to be in the insurance business, the marriage business, the education business, the service industry, or many other things it has its tentacles in.


What do you see in the constitution that authorizes a military that fights wars of choice and wars of aggression? Doesn't it ONLY authorize defense?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Unfortunately, yes it is the taxpayers because our politicians spent the money. An insurance company would never be permitted to operate on IOUs like the govt! The regulators would have shut them down a long time ago.


I don't see what that has to do with me? My contributions were invested in Treasury Notes, and I expect it to be paid back -- with interest!


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> . *Warren would fund the change by eliminating provisions used to shield corporate compensation from taxes.* Her office said the legislation would cost an estimated $40 billion."
> 
> Apparently, (again, I'm not a tax expert) the money would be diverted to SS, the one time lump sum payment would go out, and the rest would be added to the Social Security fund.


I am not a tax expert, but here goes. 

First, a "loophole" is a political buzzword used to negatively describe an exemption to a law used by someone a politician wants to demonize.

Now, Mrs. Warren wants to cancel a tax exemption FOREVER so that the CEO and /or the Corporation will pay more taxes every year. Thus, raising the tax revenue every year thereafter.

In return, she is willing to pay out a ONE TIME 3.9% to SS recipients. 

She then claims the newly raised revenue each year after will be used to support SS trust fund in the future. Except, the tax monies are placed into the general fund and can and will be used by the politicians to buy votes or for pet projects by both parties depending on who currently holds power. Leaving SS broke as it currently is. 

That's the $.02 version.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> My compensation came from 15% of my pay being contributed to the program for over 40 years. I paid a lot more in than I've received so far.



Go pull one of those old pay stubs. I've been paying in 35 years and know for a fact it was less than 5% back then.



poppy said:


> The military is not a service. It is one of the few Constitutionally founded obligations of the federal government. I see nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to be in the insurance business, the marriage business, the education business, the service industry, or many other things it has its tentacles in.





Nevada said:


> What do you see in the constitution that authorizes a military that fights wars of choice and wars of aggression? Doesn't it ONLY authorize defense?



Both of y'all go read Article I section 8 and let me know why we have a military longer than 2 years at a time when the Constitution forbids it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> So then your argument is that the military is socialism? It is a service. Should "the services" be a private enterprise?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> 
> ...


 From another post in this thread, written by yours truly:


> The CEO's get their compensation from private companies, not government fiat. *We do not live in a Socialist society. It is my firm hope that we never will.
> 
> *


SS was meant to help older folks survive during the Great Depression. Well, the depression is over now, so, there is no need for the program anymore. 

Yes, the Military is socialist by design. It is also constitutional. There are a few things that the Founders saw as necessary and included in the Constitution. Transfer payments weren't one of them. They were not included and should not be tolerated now. 

My Father saved plenty. I have a quarter of a century to continue saving before my retirement date. Save at least 15% of your pay over 30+ years of your working life and you will, likely be OK. Put it in a vast array of mutual funds and history has shown that you will be left with more than you put in. My retirement fund has more in it that I have added and that is after it went through the "great recession", not to mention my dabbling in real estate investments. But, keep hoping that government will take care of you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I am not a tax expert, but here goes.
> 
> First, a "loophole" is a political buzzword used to negatively describe an exemption to a law used by someone a politician wants to demonize.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I could have done without the rhetoric, but I do appreciate that you took the time. 

Why can't the money from closing the loophole be funneled to SS? Is there something that forbids it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Go pull one of those old pay stubs. I've been paying in 35 years and know for a fact it was less than 5% back then.


There is a matching employer contribution to FICA. If there was no FICA then your employer could pay you that money, so I consider it to be paid by the employee.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. I could have done without the rhetoric, but I do appreciate that you took the time.
> 
> Why can't the money from closing the loophole be funneled to SS? Is there something that forbids it?




Yes.
It's called greed.
Once you let a politician into your wallet for any reason, they can't help themselves and are overcome by this thing called greed and will spend it on whatever they feel like it.
They have no concept of boundaries and think that laws don't apply to them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What do you see in the constitution that authorizes a military that fights wars of choice and wars of aggression? Doesn't it ONLY authorize defense?


 Correct, which is why I advocate for the military to be reduced to its Constitutional role of a defense force.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> You exaggerate. The current SS rate is 12.4 %. Forty years ago it was less than that. http://www.tax-atlas.com/historical-fica-tax-rates/
> 
> Let's say Average Joe paid in SS for 40 years at the current rate of 12.4% and the average income of $50k per year. That's $248k. At age 65, Average Joe draws SS at $1750 per month. He's only paid in about 11 years worth, so if he lives past 77, he is being subsidized.
> 
> And the same holds true of the higher earners. If they live a long life, which you would reasonably expect someone with a higher income to do, they will draw out more than they paid in, too. That's why I think the percentages for SS and MC should be lowered, and every dollar of salary should be subject to the tax. By lowering the %, you effectively give a tax break to the lower income brackets, also it helps the employers not be penalized for providing high paying positions.


Your math forgot about interest. I used an interest calculator with a zero starting balance, $6200 per year (12.4% of $50,000), 40 years, and 7% interest. If the individual had put the money into a savings account he would have $1,237,737.69 now. If he withdraws $1750 a month , without earning another penny of interest, he would have to live to 124 to get all his money out.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> There is a matching employer contribution to FICA. If there was no FICA then your employer could pay you that money, so I consider it to be paid by the employee.


You can *consider it* all you want, that doesn't mean it's true.

Although you make my point that corporations never truly pay taxes at all, the consumer does.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The truth of the matter is that the AVERAGE man draws some $77,000 more than he contributes, and, since women tend to live longer, they draw even more. That is why the program will soon be underwater and tax payers will be force to bail it out. This doesn't count the fact that the "trust fund" has been raided by government and there is no real money there anyway. I fail to understand how ANYONE can trust government to run anything well. I have seen no evidence that they can.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. I could have done without the rhetoric, but I do appreciate that you took the time.
> 
> Why can't the money from closing the loophole be funneled to SS? Is there something that forbids it?


Sorry. I thought I did tone down the rhetoric. I tried to lay blame at the politicians, all politicians.

Anyway, about where to funds go. I need to do more research.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> If I read this right, she proposes a 3.9% raise in SS benefits for 1 year, then it goes back to normal. That translates to about $40 a month for me. Won't put me on easy street.


Ya a nice one time payment close to what we got a few years ago in a Stimulus Payment LOL I used that monies and bought a HDTV at THAT TIME.


Thursday that would provide seniors with a one-time emergency payment of 3.9 percent of* annual benefits*, which would* average out to a $581 payment.*

I will take that 500 bucks or what ever, cause I am close to the average amount per month in payment now so I should get CLOSE to the average off a One Tome Payment~!
and put some more with it and may just go out and BUY a New HDTV.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The truth of the matter is that the AVERAGE man draws some $77,000 more than he contributes, and, since women tend to live longer, they draw even more. That is why the program will soon be underwater and tax payers will be force to bail it out.


As I said earlier, that money doesn't come from the general taxpayer fund. It comes from people who died younger and didn't draw benefits.

You see, SS & Medicare are both insurance against growing old. If you die young it's sort of like carrying fire insurance but your house didn't burn down. Your fire insurance premium goes to pay for people who did have their house burn down. Likewise, FICA payments made by people who died young go to people who grew old.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> As I said earlier, that money doesn't come from the general fund. It comes from people who died younger and didn't draw benefits.
> 
> You see, SS & Medicare are both insurance against growing old. If you die young it's sort of like carrying fire insurance but your house didn't burn down. Your fire insurance premium goes to pay for people who did have their house burn down. Likewise, FICA payments made by people who died young go to people who grew old.


 The people, who die young and don't draw are counted among the AVERAGE. And while it may not come from the general fund YET, it will soon be insolvent and funding from the general fund is a possibility. Plus, Insurance shouldn't be forced. Let us opt out of SS and this the discussion would be over.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The people, who die young and don't draw are counted among the AVERAGE. And while it may not come from the general fund YET, it will soon be insolvent and funding from the general fund is a possibility. Plus, Insurance shouldn't be forced. Let us opt out of SS and this the discussion would be over.


I believe SS can be fixed with only minor adjustments, depending on medical advancements. Medicare may be more difficult.

The problem is that both Medicare and Social Security are dependent on people dying when they should, but medical advancements continue to allow us to live longer. I wonder how many more medical advancements we can afford, both in terms of people living longer and in terms of how much these medical advancements will cost Medicare.

It may be that the government might have to tell the medical community that we can't afford to find cures for things like heart disease, since the system depends on heart disease to kill a certain number of us off.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

poppy said:


> The military is not a service. It is one of the few Constitutionally founded obligations of the federal government. I see nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to be in the insurance business, the marriage business, the education business, the service industry, or many other things it has its tentacles in.


It is a service paid for by the government, and that isn't even debatable. They tax us. They use a third of that money to pay for the military. It's a service. If it IS NOT a service, what is it? Without a standing army we're all in a militia and responsible for our own defense. That's the difference. The military is a service. When you sign up.....you serve. That's state sponsored service right there. Wake up and smell the socialism in the US Army. Be all the socialist you can be.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

You guys are funny. No, Social Security was not designed to end after the depression. Yes the military is a service. Yes it is constitutional. No you don't get to decide for the rest of us what is and is not constitutional. And no... Having some social programs does not mean that we are giving in to socialism. At all. Not even a little bit.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Yes it is constitutional. No you don't get to decide for the rest of us what is and is not constitutional.


God knows they don't trust the Supreme Court's opinion, and that's with a majority of justices nominated by republican presidents.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> So then your argument is that the military is socialism? It is a service. Should "the services" be a private enterprise?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> 
> ...


We saved, we paid our home, we didnt over spend, and we have enuf to live out our days.
I have a smallish pension from a co. as well as IRAs, 401Ks.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. I could have done without the rhetoric, but I do appreciate that you took the time.
> 
> Why can't the money from closing the loophole be funneled to SS? Is there something that forbids it?


It can and should be funneled in SS but I would bet someone finds a way to funnel it somewhere else. 

Then blame it on someone else. 

Not meaning to sound snarky but I am just very jaded with the political machine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't see what that has to do with me? My contributions were invested in Treasury Notes, and I expect it to be paid back -- with interest!


Nev, I expect that too. We MAY get ours but down the line...somethings gotta give.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> The truth of the matter is that the AVERAGE man draws some $77,000 more than he contributes, and, since women tend to live longer, they draw even more. That is why the program will soon be underwater and tax payers will be force to bail it out. This doesn't count the fact that the "trust fund" has been raided by government and there is no real money there anyway. I fail to understand how ANYONE can trust government to run anything well. I have seen no evidence that they can.


I think that they actually could if there were more open about it. As it stands now there re too many people they can blame it on so the band plays on.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Often wondered this. Is SS was so good _as according to our politicians_, then why are they on a different plan?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

According to the article, it said that raises have been difficult to do because inflation has been down. We've had QE this and QE that to bring inflation up and it hasn't worked. Otherwise SS recipients would have been getting raises regularly. 

When people save and stop spending so much, it causes deflation. This is what happened in '08 and QE was supposed to fix this. It obviously hasn't so far. Not an economist here but can someone help me on this?

What is so wrong with people saving and causing some deflation. Prices should go down right? That's what I have always heard. Seems to me with inflation you get a raise then you just lose to higher priced commodities. 

So what good is a COLA when you pray for inflation and higher priced goods?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nev, I expect that too. We MAY get ours but down the line...somethings gotta give.


It looks bad now because baby boomers are entering the retirement system. That will pass. When all of us baby boomers die off the crisis will be over.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> According to the article, it said that raises have been difficult to do because inflation has been down.


Strange. They don't seem to have the same difficulty with CEO raises.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Nevada said:


> It looks bad now because baby boomers are entering the retirement system. That will pass. When all of us baby boomers die off the crisis will be over.


I'll be more optimistic of that when we actually create a law that keeps Social Security from being raided. It just got raided again in this latest budget deal. It's ridiculous.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Take the money and run. While you still can.



> The trustees who manage these massive funds on behalf of the current and future retirees of America are clearly concerned.
> 
> In the 2015 report of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees they state very plainly:
> 
> ...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-06/congress-proposes-chilling-resolution-social-security


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Strange. They don't seem to have the same difficulty with CEO raises.


I meant raises on SS Nevada. Did you not catch that? Its what the article I was quoting is about. If you did catch that then what does CEO's giving raises have to do with inflation/ deflation?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wiscto said:


> I'll be more optimistic of that when we actually create a law that keeps Social Security from being raided. It just got raided again in this latest budget deal. It's ridiculous.


That was the intent of Reagan's reform over 30 years ago. Before that congress didn't even leave IOUs.

But the money has to be invested someplace. After all, interest is an important component of the program. Maybe the US treasury isn't the best place to invest it, but what would be acceptable?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> If you did catch that then what does CEO's giving raises have to do with inflation/ deflation?


Elizabeth Warren came up with 3.9% for the SS payment because that's what CEOs got. Didn't you read the article?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Good grief. Warren is promising more freebies to one group in order to buy votes. That been a political play for leftists for decades. I ain't no CEO and I don't care how much of a raise they get. That's up to the people who hire them. Maybe she should push for laws to make government use accurate numbers to determine inflation instead, but she won't do that. To the left, government is good and infallible but CEO's are evil and crooked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Good grief. Warren is promising more freebies to one group in order to buy votes. That been a political play for leftists for decades. I ain't no CEO and I don't care how much of a raise they get. That's up to the people who hire them. Maybe she should push for laws to make government use accurate numbers to determine inflation instead, but she won't do that. To the left, government is good and infallible but CEO's are evil and crooked.


It's not like 3.9% is going to change my lifestyle.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not like 3.9% is going to change my lifestyle.



It won't change anyone's lifestyle but many would be glad to see CEO's take a hit anyway simply because they think it's "fair". We are doomed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> It won't change anyone's lifestyle but many would be glad to see CEO's take a hit anyway simply because they think it's "fair". We are doomed.


CEOs aren't taking a hit. They got their 3.9%. It's not like Warren is taking the CEOs' raises.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Nevada said:


> There seems to be a movement afoot to change SS & Medicare to be less of a self-supporting insurance plan and more of a social giveaway plan. I wouldn't like to see that. I like the idea that I paid for what I'm getting. It gives me good reason to feel justified in getting the benefits. If it was a social giveaway plan then the government could logically end it at any time and we wouldn't have a lot to complain about.


It isn't a "movement" but an economic necessity. Extra money collected from workers and not paid out to retirees is spent by the government and then the SS is given a bond as a placeholder. We are starting to pay out more than we are taking in and will continue to do so because of the baby boomers which means SS is cashing in those bonds which is little more than saying everything we are collecting in SS and tax dollars are funding the system. By 2030-2040 we will be out of bonds to cash in but not out of retirees so it will have to be a regular budget item like welfare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Declan said:


> By 2030-2040 we will be out of bonds to cash in but not out of retirees so it will have to be a regular budget item like welfare.


This situation was created because there are so many baby boomers. By 2030-2040 they'll nearly all be dead. There are fewer American in line for retirement after that.

Stop thinking linear and recognize the patterns & cycles.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I actually don't agree with raising SS just to match the CEO issue. Yes, multinational corporations and their CEOs are getting record payouts for the job they are doing corrupting politicians, stagnating innovation, and maintaining their grips on monopolization for those .1% shareholders holding their puppet strings. It is a problem. But we need to attack that problem with real economic policy, not social security. There may be a need to raise SS payouts in the future, but I don't appreciate the rhetoric. We should be attacking monopolies far more aggressively. Because you can't claim to love free market capitalism for its competition when you're actively using corrupt politicians to suppress competition.... That kind of corruption existed in Rome right before a man named Sulla tore the Republic to shreds trying to end it, and set a precedent that invited in the likes of Caesar. If you give the people no other choice, they will end up opening the door for something far worse than what we're already dealing with.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wiscto said:


> I actually don't agree with raising SS just to match the CEO issue.


I don't think that was the idea. She only used CEO raises as a benchmark to establish a fair rate.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Nevada said:


> This situation was created because there are so many baby boomers. By 2030-2040 they'll nearly all be dead. There are fewer American in line for retirement after that.
> 
> Stop thinking linear and recognize the patterns & cycles.


Perhaps you should take your own advice. After they have sucked every dime out of the reserves, there will be fewer people in line because there will be no money upon which they can retire. Our population trends are heading to less than two children per couple. Around 2050 when population peaks, there will be fewer workers paying in for the number drawing out. In 1945, there were over 40 workers paying in for every retiree. Today it is less than 3.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Elizabeth Warren came up with 3.9% for the SS payment because that's what CEOs got. Didn't you read the article?


Yes, I read the article. I stand by what I asked. What good does CEO's giving raises have to do with inflation /deflation? Especially with SS.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> You guys are funny. No, Social Security was not designed to end after the depression. Yes the military is a service. Yes it is constitutional. No you don't get to decide for the rest of us what is and is not constitutional. And no... Having some social programs does not mean that we are giving in to socialism. At all. Not even a little bit.


 I never said it was designed to end after the depression. You said it was created to solve a problem and I said the PROBLEM ended after the Depression. I also said that the Military is a service and socialist in nature, it is also expressly authorized under the Constitution, that is the difference. 

Socialism is like a cancer. We must keep it from spreading. Even in its best form, the military, it has grown beyond its intended role. 

We, who can read, know that the Constitution doesn't permit SS, Medicare, and a whole host of other Federal programs. We don't need a small group of nine people to tell us what the document says in plain English. They are not demigods, they are human and are subject to the same temptations and influences of all humans.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I believe SS can be fixed with only minor adjustments, depending on medical advancements. Medicare may be more difficult.
> 
> The problem is that both Medicare and Social Security are dependent on people dying when they should, but medical advancements continue to allow us to live longer. I wonder how many more medical advancements we can afford, both in terms of people living longer and in terms of how much these medical advancements will cost Medicare.
> 
> *It may be that the government might have to tell the medical community that we can't afford to find cures for things like heart disease, since the system depends on heart disease to kill a certain number of us off*.


And that, my friends, is why you must NOT allow government to wield as much control over us as they currently do.

As Albert Jay Nock said:


> "In proportion as you give the state power to do things for you, you give it power to do things to you."


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> CEOs aren't taking a hit. They got their 3.9%. It's not like Warren is taking the CEOs' raises.



Wrong. They are taking a hit in how they take their retirement which is supposed to fund her SS increase. She wants them to pay for your "free" increase.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Wrong. They are taking a hit in how they take their retirement which is supposed to fund her SS increase. She wants them to pay for your "free" increase.


They're losing a tax perk, not the same thing. It would be like losing the mortgage or student loan write-off. It's a perk, and not guaranteed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> They're losing a tax perk, not the same thing. It would be like losing the mortgage or student loan write-off. It's a perk, and not guaranteed.


And an undeserved raise at someone elses expense isn't a perk?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Strange. They don't seem to have the same difficulty with CEO raises.


I think we're talking gov giving COLA raises to SS folks...kinda NOT the same as CEOs getting a raise.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

It is possible to give them the bump without eliminating the proposed funding mechanism and it is possible to change the laws favoring CEO's without giving it to retirees. Either way, there are no free lunches in that system. If they do a one time extra COLA, undoubtedly it will come with a one-time hike in medicare premiums. A relative of mine's medicare premiums used to go up almost exactly what their COLA increase was every year so they would basically get the change. An unfortunate situation caused primarily with women who stay at home with kids and don't really start working until they are empty nesters. If we were to magically find the money, I would rather see it distributed to those drawing less than the median SS check every month, with nothing for the SSI or higher income retirees.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> Good grief. Warren is promising more freebies to one group in order to buy votes. That been a political play for leftists for decades. I ain't no CEO and I don't care how much of a raise they get. That's up to the people who hire them. Maybe she should push for laws to make government use accurate numbers to determine inflation instead, but she won't do that. To the left, government is good and infallible but CEO's are evil and crooked.


Post of the day award.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I never said it was designed to end after the depression. You said it was created to solve a problem and I said the PROBLEM ended after the Depression. I also said that the Military is a service and socialist in nature, it is also expressly authorized under the Constitution, that is the difference.
> 
> Socialism is like a cancer. We must keep it from spreading. Even in its best form, the military, it has grown beyond its intended role.
> 
> We, who can read, know that the Constitution doesn't permit SS, Medicare, and a whole host of other Federal programs. We don't need a small group of nine people to tell us what the document says in plain English. They are not demigods, they are human and are subject to the same temptations and influences of all humans.


No. It didn't end after The Depression. In fact, it got worse after the depression because people lived much longer than 65. Those of us who can read know that far more people live into their 90s now than lived into their 70s in 1930. Social Security also funded disability, for those who are simply unable to work well before they die.

I'm going to go backwards. You're only "admitting" that the military is socialism now because I showed you that it is by your own definition. It isn't socialism. It's defense. Social Security isn't socialism, it's one social program. Medicare/medicaid isn't socialism, it's one social program. Nearly 100% of all production and services are privately owned in this country. That's one weak cancer.... What you're saying is alarmist and incorrect. Those of us who can read know that. 

Those of us who can read "know" that your interpretation of the Constitution is only one side of a debate that has been taking place since the foundation. If you really want to go the YvonneHubby's route and force me to explain to you what George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and others believed. I will. Nobody said they're "demigods." What they are is elected. The majority of Americans believe Social Security is a good thing. There is no language written in the Constitution saying that the power to provide the general welfare is contingent upon the other enumerated powers. The other enumerated powers were detailed because each of those enumerated powers had specific issues and obstacles that needed to be dealt with, and we who can read all know that, and if I have to I can explain every one of them on this forum for the third time. You have absolutely nothing to go on. Every argument from your side of the social security debate on this forum has been uninformed. Those of us who can read know that. And since you fired the first shot. The notion that everything must be explicitly written in the Constitution is asinine. Those of us who can see the world know that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> And that, my friends, is why you must NOT allow government to wield as much control over us as they currently do.


What makes you think government has any more control over our medical care than insurance companies have. As I learned with Alma, when the insurance company decides it's time for some one to go they have ways of denying care to allow it to happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think we're talking gov giving COLA raises to SS folks...kinda NOT the same as CEOs getting a raise.


No? Why not? Why don't "SS folks" deserve the same percentage raise as CEOs?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> No. It didn't end after The Depression. In fact, it got worse after the depression because people lived much longer than 65. Those of us who can read know that far more people live into their 90s now than lived into their 70s in 1930. Social Security also funded disability, for those who are simply unable to work well before they die.
> 
> I'm going to go backwards. You're only "admitting" that the military is socialism now because I showed you that it is by your own definition. It isn't socialism. It's defense. Social Security isn't socialism, it's one social program. Medicare/medicaid isn't socialism, it's one social program. Nearly 100% of all production and services are privately owned in this country. That's one weak cancer.... What you're saying is alarmist and incorrect. Those of us who can read know that.
> 
> Those of us who can read "know" that your interpretation of the Constitution is only one side of a debate that has been taking place since the foundation. If you really want to go the YvonneHubby's route and force me to explain to you what George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and others believed. I will. Nobody said they're "demigods." What they are is elected. The majority of Americans believe Social Security is a good thing. There is no language written in the Constitution saying that the power to provide the general welfare is contingent upon the other enumerated powers. The other enumerated powers were detailed because each of those enumerated powers had specific issues and obstacles that needed to be dealt with, and we who can read all know that, and if I have to I can explain every one of them on this forum for the third time. You have absolutely nothing to go on. Every argument from your side of the social security debate on this forum has been uninformed. Those of us who can read know that. And since you fired the first shot. The notion that everything must be explicitly written in the Constitution is asinine. Those of us who can see the world know that.


 I never said that the Military wasn't socialist in nature. Nothing you said did anything to change my mind. 

I will not respond to the rest of your angry ranting except for this: The thought that the Federal government should be able to do things that are not explicitly written, in the Constitution means that the Constitution has no meaning. If the Federal government can ignore it at will, they are not limited by it in any way. You can cite any court case you wish. You can cite any opinion poll you wish, but, your vision of what the Constitution is, is wrong and it is dangerous to freedom.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You can cite any court case you wish. You can cite any opinion poll you wish, but, your vision of what the Constitution is, is wrong and it is dangerous to freedom.


And if you think a Supreme Court constitutional finding is wrong, what then?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What makes you think government has any more control over our medical care than insurance companies have. As I learned with Alma, when the insurance company decides it's time for some one to go they have ways of denying care to allow it to happen.


 With insurance companies, you can sue, you can change companies, government can regulate them. With government, you can't sue, in reality, changing governments is a messy undertaking at best, and there is no real regulation of government, unless they want it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> And if you think a Supreme Court constitutional finding is wrong, what then?


 There are many things, both inside and outside the system that can be tried. 

Impeachment of justices
New Constitutional amendments.
Appointment of sane, honest justices(long shot)
Revolution
Economic collapse as a result of stupid, unconstitutional SC decisions. 
etc.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> There are many things, both inside and outside the system that can be tried.
> 
> Impeachment of justices
> New Constitutional amendments.
> ...


You're not seriously suggesting any of those things because your opinion doesn't agree with a Supreme Court finding, are you? Doesn't that ignore the governmental role of the Supreme Court provided by the constitution? Wouldn't that be the same as YOU ignoring the constitution?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I never said that the Military wasn't socialist in nature. Nothing you said did anything to change my mind.
> 
> I will not respond to the rest of your angry ranting except for this: The thought that the Federal government should be able to do things that are not explicitly written, in the Constitution means that the Constitution has no meaning. If the Federal government can ignore it at will, they are not limited by it in any way. You can cite any court case you wish. You can cite any opinion poll you wish, but, your vision of what the Constitution is, is wrong and it is dangerous to freedom.


My angry rant.... Uh huh. What was it people here like to say about "the way I talk to them?" Starting a sentence with, "We, who can read," just makes you the kind of person asking for a response you won't like. It wasn't anger. It was just a demonstration. That like most people here, you can dish it out but can't take it. But more importantly, you will dish it out....and then cry about it when someone dishes it back.

The Constitution isn't a big enough document for every single thing to be explicitly written. It works both ways, you know... We can't list all of our personal liberties in the Constitution, because we have too many and we would likely miss one.

The same is true of the powers of Congress. And they aren't subject to your extremely inaccurate view of history. We needed social security now more than we needed it in 1937, and we needed it back then. Baby boomers are going to outlive their expectations. In fact. Generation X is supposedly going to be the first generation to not live longer than their parents, but I'm guessing that modern medicine is going to see most of Generation X through their 90s. I think you'd be fooling yourself to think people were prepared for that. And I think it would be asinine to expect everyone to know what's going on in the medical world.

Social Security is not a threat to freedom. That's ridiculous.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> There are many things, both inside and outside the system that can be tried.
> 
> Impeachment of justices
> New Constitutional amendments.
> ...


Revolution, lmao.... If that happens, you'll be the ones who wind up destroying freedom.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

LOL But you think that your state legislative body should have the right to ban gay marriage. "Stop infringing on my rights to infringe on your rights!" "You have no right to Democracy if you do things I don't like!" "Those of us who can read found the place in the Constitution where it says, "The power to provide for the general welfare only applies to the following enumerated rights.... You can't read it because it's invisible to everyone but us!!!" "We can't see how the TRUE definition of GENERAL welfare is still restricted by both Democracy and Unenumerated rights, so therefore the TRUE definition means the death of freedom! Because we said so! And we see all! Oh no the sky is falling!"

At least it's funny.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You're not seriously suggesting any of those things because your opinion doesn't agree with a Supreme Court finding, are you? Doesn't that ignore the governmental role of the Supreme Court provided by the constitution? Wouldn't that be the same as YOU ignoring the constitution?


 If a SC justice is a danger to the Constitution it is well within Constitutional bounds to remove him/her. The only one that may be in question is revolution, but, as our colonial forefathers have shown us, even that should be left on the table of possibilities. 

Does the SC have the right to nullify the 1st amendment? If there are no consequences to that action, what is stopping them?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If a SC justice is a danger to the Constitution it is well within Constitutional bounds to remove him/her.


But what is your basis for questioning a supreme court justice's opinion? They're all constitutional scholars.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Does the SC have the right to nullify the 1st amendment? If there are no consequences to that action, what is stopping them?


Nullify, no. But the First Amendment isn't without restriction.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> My angry rant.... Uh huh. What was it people here like to say about "the way I talk to them?" Starting a sentence with, "We, who can read," just makes you the kind of person asking for a response you won't like. It wasn't anger. It was just a demonstration. That like most people here, you can dish it out but can't take it. But more importantly, you will dish it out....and then cry about it when someone dishes it back.
> 
> The Constitution isn't a big enough document for every single thing to be explicitly written. It works both ways, you know... We can't list all of our personal liberties in the Constitution, because we have too many and we would likely miss one.
> 
> ...


 Don't get me wrong I like your angry rants. I just picture spit flying all over your computer screen. It make me giggle. :heh:

The Constitution addresses everything that can come up when it comes to government. There is the very limited list what the Federal Congress is allowed to do, then there is the very broad 10th amendment that gives the States and people the Lions share of the power. 

Am I free to opt out of paying for Social Security without changing anything else? (sure, I can move from the country, or, not have an income, but, hey) If the answer to that is "no", it most definitely IS a threat to freedom.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Am I free to opt out of paying for Social Security without changing anything else?


Trust me, you'll look at Social Security differently when you retire. You'll like seeing those $1000 deposits every month.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But what is your basis for questioning a supreme court justice's opinion? They're all constitutional scholars.


 If it were that simple there wouldn't be so many 5/4 splits on the court. So, who is correct? The majority or the minority? They are human. They are fallible. That can be, and often are, wrong. They let politics and precedent determine their decisions, in many cases. That is wrong, they are supposed to go by the Constitution, but, more often than not, they point to extra constitutional reasons to justify their decisions. The system is broken.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> And if you think a Supreme Court constitutional finding is wrong, what then?





Farmerga said:


> There are many things, both inside and outside the system that can be tried.
> 
> Impeachment of justices
> New Constitutional amendments.
> ...





Nevada said:


> You're not seriously suggesting any of those things because your opinion doesn't agree with a Supreme Court finding, are you? Doesn't that ignore the governmental role of the Supreme Court provided by the constitution? Wouldn't that be the same as YOU ignoring the constitution?





wiscto said:


> Revolution, lmao.... If that happens, you'll be the ones who wind up destroying freedom.




A strange dialog indeed.
Its almost as if Nevada and wiscto never read a "Lincoln" thread on here.......and I know THAT'S not true.

And yes Nevada, some of us are serious as a heart attack when it comes to the gov't turning into dictatorship.
We may not be able to openly say the exact steps that will be taken, but you can take this bet to your bookie.......plan B, C and D have already been made.
After all the NSA is the only government agency that actually listens to you, lol.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nimrod said:


> I paid into SS for my all of my life and am owed that money.



No you are not. 
It's a insurance program , you are entitled to the enumerated benefits at the time of meeting the qualifications for those benefits.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Nullify, no. But the First Amendment isn't without restriction.


 If the SCOTUS is really the final word on all things Constitutional, what stops them from "interpreting" it any way they please? In the last century they have read things into the document, that simply aren't there, to justify all sorts of governmental programs.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Trust me, you'll look at Social Security differently when you retire. You'll like seeing those $1000 deposits every month.


 That is kind of like saying that I will like heroine when I start shooing it up my veins. Likely true, but damage causing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If the SCOTUS is really the final word on all things Constitutional, what stops them from "interpreting" it any way they please?




This is where you have to spell it it out in big, block letters, Farmerga........and they look at you in disbelief, or ask you to repeat it.

"What stops the SCOTUS, or anyone else in gov't from taking away your rights?"

*The 2nd amendment.*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If the SCOTUS is really the final word on all things Constitutional, what stops them from "interpreting" it any way they please?


That's their constitutional authority. Likewise, congress can create laws any way they please, and the president can carry out laws any way he pleases. But all the is prescribed by the constitution.



Farmerga said:


> In the last century they have read things into the document, that simply aren't there, to justify all sorts of governmental programs.


That's your opinion vs the Supreme Court's opinion. If the Supreme Court isn't to be the final arbiter of the constitution, then who should be? Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? You?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That is kind of like saying that I will like heroine when I start shooing it up my veins. Likely true, but damage causing.


There's nothing inherently evil about investing in a retirement program and then drawing benefits. You may not like the way it's administrated, but there are good and valid social reasons for making it mandatory.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That's their constitutional authority. Likewise, congress can create laws any way they please, and the president can carry out laws any way he pleases. But all the is prescribed by the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion vs the Supreme Court's opinion. If the Supreme Court isn't to be the final arbiter of the constitution, then who should be? Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? You?


They govern by the CONSENT of the governed. The PEOPLE are the ultimate authority, some people don't know that or just don't care.
Ignorance or apathy, take your pick.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's their constitutional authority. Likewise, congress can create laws any way they please, and the president can carry out laws any way he pleases. But all the is prescribed by the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion vs the Supreme Court's opinion. If the Supreme Court isn't to be the final arbiter of the constitution, then who should be? Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? You?


 That is where you are wrong. The Constitution is supposed to LIMIT the Federal Government. The words of the document have been twisted to allow for any number of extra-constitutional Federal projects. Electing one President, Senator, or, Congressman, or, appointing one to the Court is not a free license to do as one pleases. They are required to uphold the Constitution. Most of them have failed in this. 

The People are the final arbiters. That would include Me, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh, along with the millions of other American citizens.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There's nothing inherently evil about investing in a retirement program and then drawing benefits. You may not like the way it's administrated, but there are good and valid social reasons for making it mandatory.


 Force is evil. All I want is the FREEDOM to opt out of the system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Force is evil. All I want is the FREEDOM to opt out of the system.


The problem with not forcing everyone into SS & Medicare is that the government is committed to providing a safety net for Americans. If an elderly person has no retirement benefits then the government is obliged to see that he doesn't starve or die for lack of medical care, which would be a huge burden to taxpayers without mandatory SS & Medicare.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The problem with not forcing everyone into SS & Medicare is that the government is committed to providing a safety net for Americans. If an elderly person has no retirement benefits then the government is obliged to see that he doesn't starve or die for lack of medical care, which would be a huge burden to taxpayers without mandatory SS & Medicare.


Oh well, that's too bad.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh well, that's too bad.


SS & Medicare have made the USA a better place to live. It's a success, not a failure.

I'm guessing you weren't around before Medicare (1965).


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> SS & Medicare have made the USA a better place to live. It's a success, not a failure.
> 
> *I'm guessing you weren't around before Medicare (1965).*


The house wins that hand, try again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> The house wins that hand, try again.


Of course Social Security predates me, but since my father was a doctor we talked a lot about Medicare at our house during the 1960s. Most elderly people had pathetic medical care before 1965.

Before Medicare most elderly got their sickroom care from physician house calls. They couldn't afford to go to the hospital because they had no insurance. That was particularly true in states that had filial responsibility laws, where children of the elderly were responsible for their parents' medical bills.

For better or for worse, Medicare spelled the end of the house call. Elderly patients with pneumonia could afford to go to the ER with Medicare.

It was a good thing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But what is your basis for questioning a supreme court justice's opinion? *They're all constitutional scholars.*


NOT when they are Legislating FROM the Bench~!!!!!!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> NOT when they are Legislating FROM the Bench~!!!!!!


Ah the angry and irrational cry of the political extremes. It never ends. They're furiously in favor of the courts when they make the "correct" ruling, but if they do something disagreeable to one extreme or the other, they're "legislating from the bench" rather than protecting Constitutional rights. It's so sad it's funny.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> So then your argument is that the military is socialism? It is a service. Should "the services" be a private enterprise?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> 
> ...


America is a Constitutional Republic, not a "representative democracy! Why would you even think that! Public schools?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> America is a Constitutional Republic, not a "representative democracy! Why would you even think that! Public schools?




Is this the second time you've tried to argue this point with me? Any learned individual is pretty much going to tell you that we qualify under a few different definitions. I think you'll notice that nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "We are a Constitutional Republic and only a Constitutional Republic and no other term could possibly describe us." Realistically speaking, all western forms of democracy are representative democracies. So we're really both right.... Except that you didn't know that, which makes you wrong.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Another example of how pols think the laws they pass don't apply to them. The law says SS is linked to inflation but when the government twist the inflation numbers to hide the fact that the cost of living is going up they want to just ignore the law. What the heck, why not just give everyone on SS a $10,000 "one time payment" just a few months before the election. Then next election there could be another "one time payment". What's a few billion more dollars in debt when it means staying in office?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Is this the second time you've tried to argue this point with me? Any learned individual is pretty much going to tell you that we qualify under a few different definitions. I think you'll notice that nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "We are a Constitutional Republic and only a Constitutional Republic and no other term could possibly describe us." Realistically speaking, all western forms of democracy are representative democracies. So we're really both right.... Except that you didn't know that, which makes you wrong....and a little trollish.


Trollish? Really? I don't recall the term "representative democracy " anywhere in the Constitution, could you please point it out? Good grief!! Other terms could describe what people like you want it to become, but the learned folks know how it should be.

And I'm not arguing, just telling.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Trollish? Really? I don't recall the term "representative democracy " anywhere in the Constitution, could you please point it out? Good grief!! Other terms could describe what people like you want it to become, but the learned folks know how it should be.
> 
> And I'm not arguing, just telling.


Hey buddy. I'm not the one telling people how to define it, I just used one of the terms that does accurately define our system. You're not arguing or telling, you're trolling, and frankly it's kind of sad that you can't do a simple google search, do a little reading, and find out that our Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic is in fact a form of Representative Democracy. But you should keep talking. I like watching uninformed people talk as if they really do know what they're talking about.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Hey buddy. *I'm not the one telling people how to define it*, I just used one of the terms that does accurately define our system. You're not arguing or telling, you're trolling, and frankly it's kind of sad that you can't do a simple google search, do a little reading, and find out that our Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic is in fact a form of Representative Democracy. But you should keep talking. I like watching uninformed people talk as if they really do know what they're talking about.


Yes, you are. Here's YOUR quote:

"We are a Representative Democracy".

You are stating that as a fact, your wrong.

Im trolling again? Is that your definition of trolling? ound: The folks that cry troll the most, usually are!!

It's really is sad that so many folks don't know or even understand the history of their own country, pathetic really!


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

Article 4 Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union* a republican form of government*, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

What exactly is a "Republican form of government" you ask?

In very simple terms:

http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government

"Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body."

Or:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

"A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country[1] in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body[2][3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law." 


You do understand our electoral voting system don't you? That alone excludes us from being a "representative democracy", aside from the fact that Constitutionally, were not.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Boy it looks like you really wasted your time there. At least you're reading now, though. I guess I'll wait for the comprehension to kick in.

This is really, really important. You should have kept reading, because this statement... _"You do understand our electoral system don't you? That alone excludes us from being a representative democracy"_...really highlights the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about. Here let me help you out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy



> Representative democracy (also indirect democracy or psephocracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of *elected officials representing a group of people*, as opposed to direct democracy. *All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies*; for example, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and Germany is a parliamentary republic.


The "republic not a democracy" thing, by the way.... I know where that comes from. I know you're just parroting Rush Limbaugh. And do you know what kind of person Rush is? He's the kind of person who will truncate a Reagan speech because his asinine talking points run afoul of the great Reagan's own point of view. 



> You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One&#8217;s country is worth dying for, and *democracy* is worth dying for, because it&#8217;s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. &#8212; President Ronald Reagan, Normandy, June 6, 1984


What a despicable human being Rush Limbaugh is. Truncating the speech on his show so y'all wouldn't hear Reagan say the word democracy. Pathetic.

Now, if you actually look at the history of the use of both republic and democracy, you'll find that they're practically the same. In Greek, democracy literally means "rule of (or by) the people." In latin, res publica, literally means "thing belonging to the people." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-founded the "Democratic-Republican Party." There is no sharp contrast between the two words. At all. They chose to say "republic" because they were afraid that otherwise Americans would go for "direct democracy," and Jefferson and Madison were nothing if not elitist. They didn't like uneducated poor folk... So they had to cater their language to those who falsely believed that direct democracy was the only form of democracy, when direct democracy wasn't even the only form of democracy in ancient Greece. 

It's a complete waste of time to argue about it. And frankly, the only people who don't use the words interchangeably are those who are UNINFORMED.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

democrocy with a SMALL d not democrocy with a capital D.
We never never ever want this country to be a true Democrocy where MOB RULES.
And we are NOT a True Democracy either. Good deal all the way around on that~!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No? Why not? Why don't "SS folks" deserve the same percentage raise as CEOs?


Lots of folks "deserve" stuff. Teachers/military "deserve" to be paid like baseball players. Why aren't they?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, you are. Here's YOUR quote:
> 
> "We are a Representative Democracy".
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No? Why not? Why don't "SS folks" deserve the same percentage raise as CEOs?


Are you being serious? Why don't SS recipients deserve 100 times the percentage of raise as CEO's? Why don't I deserve a new truck like my banker friend? There's no end to what liberals think they deserve. How about forgetting what you deserve and pondering why you didn't put more up for your own retirement?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Every time Congress gives themselves a raise, Seniors should get one too.
I don't trust Elizabeth Warren, she's a proven fraud and liar.
I'm not sure how she's still in office other than Obama runs the DOJ, and democrats are getting away with just about anything these days.
Corruption at it's finest.
If she's for it, I'm against it just because she's untrustworthy and probably has something else up her sleeve.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Every time Congress gives themselves a raise, Seniors should get one too.
> I don't trust Elizabeth Warren, she's a proven fraud and liar.
> I'm not sure how she's still in office other than Obama runs the DOJ, and democrats are getting away with just about anything these days.
> Corruption at it's finest.
> If she's for it, I'm against it just because she's untrustworthy and probably has something else up her sleeve.


Elizabeth Warren is a Senator from MA. 

She was livid about the DOJ and SEC over how they handle banks and the minor punishment they receive. She's one of the good guys. 

http://www.law360.com/articles/643593/warren-blasts-sec-doj-over-slap-on-the-wrist-enforcement


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> democrocy with a SMALL d not democrocy with a capital D.
> We never never ever want this country to be a true Democrocy where MOB RULES.
> And we are NOT a True Democracy either. Good deal all the way around on that~!


I can pretty much guarantee you that the capitalization doesn't matter... And you're absolutely right. Direct democracy would be a bad idea. There hasn't been a direct democracy for thousands of years. So congratulations on knowing what everyone in the western world already knew except for Rush Limbaugh and his faithful uneducated following.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


Should have scrolled down more.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

wiscto said:


> Boy it looks like you really wasted your time there. At least you're reading now, though. I guess I'll wait for the comprehension to kick in.
> 
> This is really, really important. You should have kept reading, because this statement... _"You do understand our electoral system don't you? That alone excludes us from being a representative democracy"_...really highlights the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about. Here let me help you out.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Every time Congress gives themselves a raise, Seniors should get one too.
> I don't trust Elizabeth Warren, she's a proven fraud and liar.
> I'm not sure how she's still in office other than Obama runs the DOJ, and democrats are getting away with just about anything these days.
> Corruption at it's finest.
> If she's for it, I'm against it just because she's untrustworthy and probably has something else up her sleeve.


One of these days I would love to spend a day in the alternate universe you live in. Elizabeth Warren is considered an honest and upright person by pretty much everyone across the board left or right. The only people who hate her are Wall Street and the big banks because she won't be bought off.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Lots of folks "deserve" stuff. Teachers/military "deserve" to be paid like baseball players. Why aren't they?


Excellent example and question.
A) Greed and lack of moral values.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Greed and lack of moral values.


Are you describing retired people?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> One of these days I would love to spend a day in the alternate universe you live in. Elizabeth Warren is considered an honest and upright person by pretty much everyone across the board left or right. The only people who hate her are Wall Street and the big banks because she won't be bought off.


Lieawatha honest? Using unproven ancestry to use affirmative action to get a job at Harvard. Doesn't exactly fit my definition of honest nor upstanding.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Using unproven ancestry to use affirmative action to get a job at Harvard.


That's not true. She checked the "Native American" box on her application to teach at U of Penn, but not when she applied to teach at Harvard.

Why would you make something like that up? If you're going to dig-up 20 year old dirt on someone, at least be accurate about it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Are you describing retired people?


Looking at the context of my quote in reply to "Why aren't teachers and military paid like professional athletes"........not necessarily.
Unless they think that is ok.
The point was made to show our screwed up priorities.
Teachers and soldiers do one of our most important jobs under some of the worst conditions.
Ball players just play a kid's game.
Which group do YOU think should be treated like millionaires?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Lieawatha honest? Using unproven ancestry to use affirmative action to get a job at Harvard. Doesn't exactly fit my definition of honest nor upstanding.



Googling "liewatha" was a leap into a cesspool, gotta love the Right for the ugly depths they will go to in order to do a hatchet job on someone. Half of America claims to have Native American ancestry. And she is from Oklahoma and the vast majority of them do have and do claim NA ancestry. 


> *Native American heritage controversy*
> 
> In April 2012, the _Boston Herald_ sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories.[64] Harvard Law School had publicized her minority status in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper during the 2012 election.[64][65][66] Scott Brown, her Republican opponent in the Senate race, speculated that she had fabricated Native American heritage to gain advantage in the employment market.[67][68][69] Former colleagues and supervisors at universities she had worked at stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring.[65][66][69][70] Warren responded to the allegations saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots.[71] Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage".[72] In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.[73] The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warrenâs great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of her descent.[69][74][75] The Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration.[76]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_American_heritage_controversy


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That's not true. She checked the "Native American" box on her application to teach at U of Penn, but not when she applied to teach at Harvard.
> 
> Why would you make something like that up? If you're going to dig-up 20 year old dirt on someone, at least be accurate about it.


Who's the one not accurate?

To answer your question, from this article quoting Warren's own statement is one source. Google will show you many!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...lling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Googling "liewatha" was a leap into a cesspool, gotta love the Right for the ugly depths they will go to in order to do a hatchet job on someone. Half of America claims to have Native American ancestry. And she is from Oklahoma and the vast majority of them do have and do claim NA ancestry.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_American_heritage_controversy


I have Seneca blood. I'm a lily white, wildly freckled, and red haired but my great great grandmother was a full blooded Seneca. It's prominent in my maternal uncle, and you could see it in my mother.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> democrocy with a SMALL d not democrocy with a capital D.
> We never never ever want this country to be a true Democrocy where MOB RULES.
> And we are NOT a True Democracy either. Good deal all the way around on that~!


I think we've reached the point I'd have to disagree. Rights are routinely trampled and laws ignored all because doing so will allow the pols to get a majority of the votes and get and/or retain power.

As I have pointed out this issue is a example of that. There are laws which determines how much SS payments are and how much they will increase. But because right now following that law might just cost some pols votes in the next election they and willing to urinate on the law. And the majority of the voters will probably cheer.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Are you describing retired people?


Seeing as how they seem to be demanding the government take even more money out of the pockets of their kids and grandkids you have to wonder. . .

As I have pointed out before all the money people on SS now paid in was stolen and they not only voted for but REPEATEDLY voted for the people who stole it. But now that its their turn they don't have any problem with taking the money that is being stolen from the current generation.

I use this example. If someone broke into your house and stole your TV and computer would you then think it would be OK for you to break into your neighbor's house and steal his TV and computer?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Looking at the context of my quote in reply to "Why aren't teachers and military paid like professional athletes"........not necessarily.
> Unless they think that is ok.
> The point was made to show our screwed up priorities.
> Teachers and soldiers do one of our most important jobs under some of the worst conditions.
> ...


As shown by real live there are a lot of people who can be teachers and soldiers but there aren't that many people who can hit a 98 mph fast ball 1 out of 3 times. Supply and demand.

And I haven't seen all that many people willing to pay over $100/person (including tickets, travel, parking etc) to go to a school science fair.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> As shown by real live there are a lot of people who can be teachers and soldiers but there aren't that many people who can hit a 98 mph fast ball 1 out of 3 times. Supply and demand.
> 
> 
> 
> And I haven't seen all that many people willing to pay over $100/person (including tickets, travel, parking etc) to go to a school science fair.



So the answer would be " because the morons are in charge"?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Googling "liewatha" was a leap into a cesspool, gotta love the Right for the ugly depths they will go to in order to do a hatchet job on someone. Half of America claims to have Native American ancestry. And she is from Oklahoma and the vast majority of them do have and do claim NA ancestry.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_American_heritage_controversy


Unproven ancestry. We agree. 

And I don't see half of America trying to use it to get an advantage over others to advance ones career. Just doesn't scream of honesty in my opinion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Elizabeth Warren is a Senator from MA.
> 
> She was livid about the DOJ and SEC over how they handle banks and the minor punishment they receive. She's one of the good guys.
> 
> http://www.law360.com/articles/643593/warren-blasts-sec-doj-over-slap-on-the-wrist-enforcement


I know who she is
I know what she is
She's not a "good guy"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> One of these days I would love to spend a day in the alternate universe you live in. Elizabeth Warren is considered an honest and upright person by pretty much everyone across the board left or right. The only people who hate her are Wall Street and the big banks because she won't be bought off.


Honesty didn't earn her the nickname "Lie-awatha"
I suppose you don't remember that she falsely claimed NA blood?
https://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/elizabeth-warrens-lies-catching-up-with-her/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...lling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/

If that's honest and upright to you, then I understand why you think like you do


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's not true. She checked the "Native American" box on her application to teach at U of Penn, but not when she applied to teach at Harvard.
> 
> Why would you make something like that up? If you're going to dig-up 20 year old dirt on someone, at least be accurate about it.


You'll forgive any lie told by a democrat


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> And I don't see half of America trying to use it to get an advantage over others to advance ones career. Just doesn't scream of honesty in my opinion.


Maybe so, but that doesn't make her wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> One of these days I would love to spend a day in the alternate universe you live in. Elizabeth Warren is considered an honest and upright person by pretty much everyone across the board left or right. The only people who hate her are Wall Street and the big banks because she won't be bought off.


It's _only_ because of the "D" after her name. That automatically makes her "bad" in some minds. It's sad. I base my opinion (and vote) on the person, never the party, but not everyone does. I voted for two "Rs" in last week's local election.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have Seneca blood. I'm a lily white, wildly freckled, and red haired but my great great grandmother was a full blooded Seneca. It's prominent in my maternal uncle, and you could see it in my mother.


So you'd claim Native American on a job application?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's _only_ because of the "D" after her name. That automatically makes her "bad" in some minds. It's sad. I base my opinion (and vote) on the person, never the party, but not everyone does. I voted for two "Rs" in last week's local election.


Why do you admire a liar and cheat?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but that doesn't make her wrong.


She's dishonest but not wrong?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You'll forgive any lie told by a democrat


I'm losing my sense of humor for the ugliness of right-wing politics.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So the answer would be " because the morons are in charge"?


Yep, democracy in action.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm losing my sense of humor for the ugliness of right-wing politics.


But not of the left wing?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but that doesn't make her wrong.


Sure doesn't prove she was right.

Were you wrong earlier when you accused me of making up things?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> But not of the left wing?


No, my daughter and son-in-law had a particularly ugly encounter with a neocon neighbor last weekend.

Son-in-law is career army with over 19 years of service. He'll retire next year. Seems that the neocon neighbor thinks son-in-law shouldn't be allowed to serve considering his disagreement with the Iraq war. Neighbor thinks all soldiers should back the president (but not Obama, of course). Finally, since his regular army job doesn't involve carrying a weapon neighbor thinks he's not really a military person anyway.

This really upset my daughter, which upsets me. It's particularly disturbing on Veteran's Day. This sort of ugliness serves no purpose at all.

It's like we aren't Americans anymore. We're either on the right or on the left. We're going to turn into another Iraq, where they are either Sunni or Shiite. They have no national identity, and we're losing ours.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Unproven ancestry. We agree.
> 
> And I don't see half of America trying to use it to get an advantage over others to advance ones career. Just doesn't scream of honesty in my opinion.


She didn't use it to advance her career though.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> She didn't use it to advance her career though.


Sure she did. Her own statement says she checked the Native American box on the employment applications at both universities which gave her minority status and made her a more desirable applicant than other non minority applicants. Whether the university used it or not is a mute point. She marked the boxes to use the minority status and gain an advantage.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Honesty didn't earn her the nickname "Lie-awatha"
> I suppose you don't remember that she falsely claimed NA blood?
> https://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/elizabeth-warrens-lies-catching-up-with-her/
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...lling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/
> ...


I'm sorry do you have definitive DNA proof that she has no Native American ancestry? Unless you do calling her a liar is pretty low. She explained why she claimed it and had the family history and pedigree to back up her claim. Like I said before you would be hard pressed to find someone from Oklahoma who doesn't claim NA ancestry.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> One of these days I would love to spend a day in the alternate universe you live in. Elizabeth Warren is considered an honest and upright person by pretty much everyone across the board left or right. The only people who hate her are Wall Street and the big banks because she won't be bought off.


Perhaps in your world this is true. She's considered a fake & a heap big socialist in most worlds.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Sure she did. Her own statement says she checked the Native American box on the employment applications at both universities which gave her minority status and made her a more desirable applicant than other non minority applicants. Whether the university used it or not is a mute point. She marked the boxes to use the minority status and gain an advantage.


She checked the box. That is a fact. Your reasons for it are pure speculation and she gave a different reason for checking them. And the schools did not use it to give her application any extra weight so the whole thing is moot anyhoo.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Perhaps in your world this is true. She's considered a fake & a heap big socialist in most worlds.


Heap big socialist? Really? You guys never cease to amaze....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> As shown by real live there are a lot of people who can be teachers and soldiers but there aren't that many people who can hit a 98 mph fast ball 1 out of 3 times. Supply and demand.
> 
> And I haven't seen all that many people willing to pay over $100/person (including tickets, travel, parking etc) to go to a school science fair.


The facitious point I was trying to make is who pays whom.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Heap big socialist? Really? You guys never cease to amaze....


No, there's nothing mocking with using "heap big" in conjunction with American Indians, is there? 

Ben Carson can be caught lying on video and in print and the excuses start flying... It doesn't really matter, the chances of a republican being elected are slim.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, my daughter and son-in-law had a particularly ugly encounter with a neocon neighbor last weekend.
> 
> Son-in-law is career army with over 19 years of service. He'll retire next year. Seems that the neocon neighbor thinks son-in-law shouldn't be allowed to serve considering his disagreement with the Iraq war. Neighbor thinks all soldiers should back the president (but not Obama, of course). Finally, since his regular army job doesn't involve carrying a weapon neighbor thinks he's not really a military person anyway.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your study of one idiot.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No, my daughter and son-in-law had a particularly ugly encounter with a neocon neighbor last weekend.
> 
> Son-in-law is career army with over 19 years of service. He'll retire next year. Seems that the neocon neighbor thinks son-in-law shouldn't be allowed to serve considering his disagreement with the Iraq war. Neighbor thinks all soldiers should back the president (but not Obama, of course). Finally, since his regular army job doesn't involve carrying a weapon neighbor thinks he's not really a military person anyway.
> 
> ...


The definition of patriot has taken a bizarre turn these days that's for sure. Kudos to your SIL. I did my first enlistment and I was done. I admire anyone who sticks it out to retirement. 

And your neighbor is an idiot. Most military people don't carry a gun 24/7 and support people are just as important as infantry.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> She didn't use it to advance her career though.


So she says. Her reason for checking the box was pretty lame according to the quote posted. 

As far as all of us with Indian ancestry, I feel like if you have never been part of the culture what does it matter whether it's in your DNA. 

DH is 1/4 but not registered with the tribe and never was exposed to the culture. He identifies himself as "white" when it comes up. He would not feel *honest* to identify as an ethnic group he knows nothing about. I have some Indian from both sides, probably not more than 1/8 and also generations removed from the culture, so it is disingenuous to brag about my "Indian heritage". 

But someone who might even have zero "blood" but lives in the culture, they have the right to identify. Like my cousin who married into an Indian nation. Moved onto the rez. That is her culture now and that of her kids, so she should check the box even though her DNA might say zero.

It's what you live, not a few DNA markers from generations back that makes your ethnic identity. 

So yes, I agree, she is "Lieawatha".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Thanks for your study of one idiot.


She knows he's an idiot, but that doesn't make my daughter feel any better. She's really proud of her husband and she doesn't like the idea that some people don't respect his service.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, my daughter and son-in-law had a particularly ugly encounter with a neocon neighbor last weekend.
> 
> Son-in-law is career army with over 19 years of service. He'll retire next year. Seems that the neocon neighbor thinks son-in-law shouldn't be allowed to serve considering his disagreement with the Iraq war. Neighbor thinks all soldiers should back the president (but not Obama, of course). Finally, since his regular army job doesn't involve carrying a weapon neighbor thinks he's not really a military person anyway.
> 
> ...


That's like saying you are sick of all apples because the one your daughter ate had a worm in it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> She knows he's an idiot, but that doesn't make my daughter feel any better. She's really proud of her husband and she doesn't like the idea that some people don't respect his service.


 Once you let other's actions having that much effect on you, you have given them the ability to control you. As the old saying goes "Anger is a weapon only for your enemy." Also her neighbor probably knows he can control her actions by his and enjoys the power he gets from it. Its like the bully who enjoys the power to make the fat kid cry by calling him fat.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

SS recipients are already getting a raise this year.[/QUOTE said:


> I'm sorry, but I just want to understand. Does the fact that they get a raise bother people? They get very little anyway.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'm losing my sense of humor for the ugliness of right-wing politics.


But not the ugliness, corruption and lies of the left huh?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> No, my daughter and son-in-law had a particularly ugly encounter with a neocon neighbor last weekend.
> 
> Son-in-law is career army with over 19 years of service. He'll retire next year. Seems that the neocon neighbor thinks son-in-law shouldn't be allowed to serve considering his disagreement with the Iraq war. Neighbor thinks all soldiers should back the president (but not Obama, of course). Finally, since his regular army job doesn't involve carrying a weapon neighbor thinks he's not really a military person anyway.
> 
> ...


Yep, because you fell into Obama's trap of division.
That's why the lefties are being so rude and snarky when we point out what an absolute fraud Warren is.
She's got the "D" and that's good enough for you people.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> She didn't use it to advance her career though.


Read the links, don't just blindly believe everything Obamaco spits out


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Sure she did. Her own statement says she checked the Native American box on the employment applications at both universities which gave her minority status and made her a more desirable applicant than other non minority applicants. Whether the university used it or not is a mute point. She marked the boxes to use the minority status and gain an advantage.


Your facts will be ignored or dismissed, they don't care about truth.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I'm sorry do you have definitive DNA proof that she has no Native American ancestry? Unless you do calling her a liar is pretty low. She explained why she claimed it and had the family history and pedigree to back up her claim. Like I said before you would be hard pressed to find someone from Oklahoma who doesn't claim NA ancestry.


She admitted to checking the Native American box on the app.
Does she have proof?
Pretty low of you to call me low, but then you can pretty much run your mouth at will can't you?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Heap big socialist? Really? You guys never cease to amaze....


Never mind, not worth getting banned for rude remarks by rude people


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, there's nothing mocking with using "heap big" in conjunction with American Indians, is there?
> 
> Ben Carson can be caught lying on video and in print and the excuses start flying... It doesn't really matter, the chances of a republican being elected are slim.


Sorry, he was proven correct and it was Politico that lied
The left again
But you don't care about truth either
None of you do, you just take the lies and spread them
Just like they want you to.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> As shown by real live there are a lot of people who can be teachers and soldiers but there aren't that many people who can hit a 98 mph fast ball 1 out of 3 times. Supply and demand.
> 
> And I haven't seen all that many people willing to pay over $100/person (including tickets, travel, parking etc) to go to a school science fair.


 
And THAT is the perfect example of why our culture is in the shape it is today.
The things my teachers taught me years ago is why I can put food on the table today.
The sacrifices my fathers made are why I can live where and how I live today.
I can't say the same for any ball player alive or dead in all of history.
What a dog gone shame there are people that think that way.
What a shame.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Sorry, he was proven correct and it was Politico that lied
> The left again
> But you don't care about truth either
> None of you do, you just take the lies and spread them
> Just like they want you to.



I am going to start calling you Pot.  I am fairly certain you and a couple of others here get daily emails from the GOP with a list of talking points to cover.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I am going to start calling you Pot.  I am fairly certain you and a couple of others here get daily emails from the GOP with a list of talking points to cover.


And I'm pretty sure you and your cohorts get emails from the left filled with lies to spread 
By the way, I guess you hate Trump because he's native American?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> And THAT is the perfect example of why our culture is in the shape it is today.
> The things my teachers taught me years ago is why I can put food on the table today.
> The sacrifices my fathers made are why I can live where and how I live today.
> I can't say the same for any ball player alive or dead in all of history.
> ...


Why is it a shame when someone is paid based on his skills and the demand for them? Teachers are important the fact is there are a LOT of people out there who could be a teacher if they wished and there are plenty of people out there who want to teach. Because of this there is no need to offer people huge amounts of money to teach. Add to the fact that teaching is a non-profit business and you can see why teachers don't get paid big bucks. 

If you check my post here you will see I'm a big supporter of the military but I have no problem with a trooper who is doing a job that 90+% of the adult population could do getting paid much, much less than someone doing a job that only a small percentage of people can do. I don't care if that job is playing ball at the major league level or being the CEO of a multinational multibillion dollar company.

Its not up to you or me to say what a job or person's labor is worth. That's between the employee and employer. An employee wants to make as much as possible for the work he does and the employer wants to pay as little as possible to get the job done. If either side doesn't like the offer of the other they have the ability to say no.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Sorry, he was proven correct and it was Politico that lied
> The left again
> But you don't care about truth either
> None of you do, you just take the lies and spread them
> Just like they want you to.


So that proves that a one time SS bonus is a bad idea.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Why is it a shame when someone is paid based on his skills and the demand for them? Teachers are important the fact is there are a LOT of people out there who could be a teacher if they wished and there are plenty of people out there who want to teach. Because of this there is no need to offer people huge amounts of money to teach. Add to the fact that teaching is a non-profit business and you can see why teachers don't get paid big bucks.
> 
> If you check my post here you will see I'm a big supporter of the military but I have no problem with a trooper who is doing a job that 90+% of the adult population could do getting paid much, much less than someone doing a job that only a small percentage of people can do. I don't care if that job is playing ball at the major league level or being the CEO of a multinational multibillion dollar company.
> 
> Its not up to you or me to say what a job or person's labor is worth. That's between the employee and employer. An employee wants to make as much as possible for the work he does and the employer wants to pay as little as possible to get the job done. If either side doesn't like the offer of the other they have the ability to say no.


 
It is a shame when the nation's priorities are entertainment rather than education or a soldier's sacrifice.
You can defend it with capitalistic sayings all day long, it still makes our country smell like cow manure.
Just because it has a higher dollar value doesn't mean it has a higher moral value.
I DO know that much.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


Apparently not.

Or because my mommy said so is considered proof.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Sorry, he was proven correct and it was Politico that lied
> The left again
> But you don't care about truth either
> None of you do, you just take the lies and spread them
> Just like they want you to.


Like I said, the excuses come out with Ben Carson. Why? He has an "R" after his name.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> So that proves that a one time SS bonus is a bad idea.


Apparently. It's because of the "D" after her name... No good can ever come from a person with a "D" after their name. It's just not possible. 

A person with a "R" is given a pass on anything up to murder, and under some circumstances that too can be explained and accepted. :thumb:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


Yes, you do. If you're using it formally it must be substantiated.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> And THAT is the perfect example of why our culture is in the shape it is today.
> The things my teachers taught me years ago is why I can put food on the table today.
> The sacrifices my fathers made are why I can live where and how I live today.
> I can't say the same for any ball player alive or dead in all of history.
> ...


I'll have to back watcher on this. (Gasps of disbelief). Labor is a commodity subject to demand pressures. If you can do something no one e&#322;se can and society wishes reward you for it, good on you.

Your assumption that this dichotomy in pay is the cause or even a symptom of societal problems is equally false. Professional school teachers have always been undervalued in pay. It's never been a profession where one made large amounts of money. For years part of the trade off was stability, good benefits and those summers off to hold a seasonal job to help make ends meet. I have more than a few teachers in my family history, including an older sister. Today even that pay and those benefits are under attack. And it's conservatives leading the way because their greed, as you might call it, wants them paying low taxes and getting great teachers. 

I also come from a military family. I, along with many of my friends, had a working mother. Even as a senior non com my father's pay didn't provide for a lot of extras. The situation you bemoan isn't new.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Mary Jo Kopechne 

Only charge, leaving the scene. 2 month suspended sentence. Yes, those nasty Republicans are the only ones that get away with killing folks.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> But not the ugliness, corruption and lies of the left huh?


Possibly the left is a little upset b/c the right seems to be calling them on more this season?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


Not if you are a blond dem woman who claims her granny & aunt said some male relative had high cheekbones: Native American.

Yup. That's her story.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Like I said, the excuses come out with Ben Carson. Why? He has an "R" after his name.


Sure. The FACT that he did not lie, that Politico did, has nada to do w/it. 
Of course, most on the left love reading the lies that Politico put out & never seem to see the retractions or the facts.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sure. The FACT that he did not lie, that Politico did, has nada to do w/it.
> Of course, most on the left love reading the lies that Politico put out & never seem to see the retractions or the facts.


The naysayers are completely ignoring the fact that the lies and half truths are in his *autobiography and on film*. There is no way "he didn't lie", they can blame it on someone else, or to explain it away. 

If you're going lie don't do it in print or on video, period.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Mary Jo Kopechne
> 
> Only charge, leaving the scene. 2 month suspended sentence. Yes, those nasty Republicans are the only ones that get away with killing folks.


Where did I say only? Can you point it out please? Thanks.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So that proves that a one time SS bonus is a bad idea.


You really think if it happens this will be the one and only time? I don't think even you are that naive.

You and I both know this is all about buying votes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Not if you are a *blond* dem woman who claims her granny & aunt said some male relative had high cheekbones: Native American.
> 
> Yup. That's her story.


Dang. You've never heard of hair color? The "blonde dem woman" could actually have :gasp: dark hair. What is this black magick? :facepalm:

She is claiming a ggg (whatever) grandparent as Cherokee. Dang.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


Not really. We've gotten to the point that you can claim to be anything and proof is not required. You can always claim you identify as such and such and that is supposed to shut your critics up. People even make up Indian tribe names out of thin air to claim association. Personally, I'm still working on a plan to get into girl's shower rooms by self identifying as a bar of soap.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Never mind, not worth getting banned for rude remarks by rude people


You realize who made the rude statement "heap big socialist", right? It wasn't Patchouli.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say only? Can you point it out please? Thanks.


Sorry, you didn't say only.

You just implied it to prove a point but left enough wiggle room to make someone else look like a bigot.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It is a shame when the nation's priorities are entertainment rather than education or a soldier's sacrifice.


Its not just this nation its humans in general. Throughout history people have been more willing to pay for entertainment.




farmrbrown said:


> You can defend it with capitalistic sayings all day long, it still makes our country smell like cow manure.


I don't see why. Our nation was founded on freedom and one of the greatest freedoms there is, is to be able to sell your labor in a free market for as much as possible. And having that freedom means some people's labor is going to be worth less than another's in that free market. The other option is to have the government telling you how much it thinks you are worth, do you like that idea?




farmrbrown said:


> Just because it has a higher dollar value doesn't mean it has a higher moral value.
> I DO know that much.


That moral value is why we have people who are willing to do the jobs for the pay. I have never met a seasoned trooper or teacher who took the job w/o knowing the cost-benefit ratio; i.e. the number of hours and personal sacrifices vs dollars earned. They are in the job because they like it and they think its important.

But the reason a teacher makes less than a CEO comes down to the basics of supply and demand. Its bad enough that the government has the power to force a minimum wage on people but the thought that it might take the power to force a MAXIMUM wage is really scary to me.

BTW, the idea of moral job equality has been tried. Long ago I read about how at one time in the USSR bus drivers and doctors were both considered to be vital to society and as such both were paid equally. The result was as most logical thinkers would have expected. They wound up with a lot of people wanting to be bus drivers and not that many seeking entrance into medical school. Of course in that system not only could the government tell you how much you would make in your job it could also tell you what your job would be. So they just told some people they were going to be doctors. You can probably image the resulting medical care provided.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


A few decades ago I was working a part time government job and in training we were told that we had to accept what ever race the person told us. If the person in front of us was a redhead with green eyes, pale skin and freckles and claimed to be black we had to enter his race as black. 

IIRC, the tribes get to set their own standards on who is a member and who is not. Used to come up fairly often when the Indian casino building craze started.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently. It's because of the "D" after her name... No good can ever come from a person with a "D" after their name. It's just not possible.
> 
> A person with a "R" is given a pass on anything up to murder, and under some circumstances that too can be explained and accepted. :thumb:


And with the "D" after their name even murder is over looked, e.g. Ted Kennedy.

That was just too easy to pass up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'll have to back watcher on this. (Gasps of disbelief).


My lawyers will be contacting you soon about the injuries I suffered when I fell out of my chair.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> And with the "D" after their name even murder is over looked, e.g. Ted Kennedy.
> 
> That was just too easy to pass up.


That was more about the dollars in daddy's bank account than party affiliation. It was one of the reasons many didn't vote for him and why he never reached his aspiration of president.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> If you claim aboriginal status, do you not have to provide supporting information?


Not if you are a democrat apparently.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Like I said, the excuses come out with Ben Carson. Why? He has an "R" after his name.


No excuses
Ben told the truth
Politico lied and they admitted it.
Doesn't matter, you guys cling to the lies, that's why they do it.'
they know you'll stop listening as soon as you hear what you want and you'll ignore the truth.
I wonder why they didn't vet Obama like that?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.



> "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, you do. If you're using it formally it must be substantiated.


But Warren doesn't need to prove it to you


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The naysayers are completely ignoring the fact that the lies and half truths are in his *autobiography and on film*. There is no way "he didn't lie", they can blame it on someone else, or to explain it away.
> 
> If you're going lie don't do it in print or on video, period.


Actually, he told the truth, and again, it was the left who lied by claiming he lied.
Did you read Obama's works of fiction including his autobiography?
Full of lies, and verified they were lies.
Where's your outrage?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize who made the rude statement "heap big socialist", right? It wasn't Patchouli.


That was rude?
I wasn't talking about that one anyway
you'll side with your gals no matter what they say or do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Sorry, you didn't say only.
> 
> You just implied it to prove a point but left enough wiggle room to make someone else look like a bigot.


Well, that's _your_ opinion of what I meant, right? I'm not liable for what you read into my posts. But by all means, you'd know better what I meant than I do, huh?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

watcher said:


> And with the "D" after their name even murder is over looked, e.g. Ted Kennedy.
> 
> That was just too easy to pass up.



It's been established that I never said, "only". Sorry, but no :drum: 

Better luck next time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> But Warren doesn't need to prove it to you


Why would she need to prove her genetics to anyone?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> If it were that simple there wouldn't be so many 5/4 splits on the court. So, who is correct? The majority or the minority? They are human. They are fallible. That can be, and often are, wrong. They let politics and precedent determine their decisions, in many cases. That is wrong, they are supposed to go by the Constitution, but, more often than not, they point to extra constitutional reasons to justify their decisions. The system is broken.


You just hit the nail squarely driving it all the way in. 

The Constitution is intrepreptive and SC unanimity is rare.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why would she need to prove her genetics to anyone?



You do in Canada. If your intend to use First Nations status for any benefits (tax exemptions, education subsidies, etc), you must be able to provide a treaty number.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> A few decades ago I was working a part time government job and in training we were told that we had to accept what ever race the person told us. If the person in front of us was a redhead with green eyes, pale skin and freckles and claimed to be black we had to enter his race as black.


Unless the government office is willing to foot the bill for DNA testing & analysis, there's not much they can do except take people at their word. There has to be a factual basis to challenge someone's sworn statement.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> You do in Canada. If your intend to use First Nations status for any benefits (tax exemptions, education subsidies, etc), you must be able to provide a treaty number.


I meant prove it to a regular citizen, not for formal benefits linked directly to genetics. As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren as not tried to join a tribe or do anything formal with her American Indian ancestry, ie. apply for scholarships, etc.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I meant prove it to a regular citizen, not for formal benefits linked directly to genetics. As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren as not tried to join a tribe or do anything formal with her American Indian ancestry, ie. apply for scholarships, etc.


Warrenâs self-proclaimed Native American background helped her get jobs with UPenn and Harvard


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Warrenâs self-proclaimed Native American background helped her get jobs with UPenn and Harvard


Can you cite that please? Thanks.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you cite that please? Thanks.


Did do break your googler?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you cite that please? Thanks.


It's common knowledge, but here's one source of many


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Warrenâs self-proclaimed Native American background helped her get jobs with UPenn and Harvard





Cornhusker said:


> It's common knowledge, but here's one source of many


The link you provided does not support your previous claim that it aided her in obtaining employment.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> It's common knowledge, but here's one source of many


From your link: 

"Two key people who recruited her to Harvard have said they did not know of her purported heritage or take it into account when hiring her. The school did not promote her as a Native American when she was hired, despite the fact that it was under intense pressure to diversify its faculty with more minorities."

And

"Professor Charles Fried, who sat on the committee that recruited Warren, reiterated to the Globe on Wednesday that he was unaware of Warrenâs minority status when she was hired. He said that the committee never discussed it and that he does not consult the legal directory in which Warren had listed herself as a minority.

However, Fried acknowledged Wednesday to the Globe, it seemed strange that the issue of her heritage would not come up during the hiring process since she was recruited in the early 1990s, when the school was under intense pressure to diversify its faculty.

Fried added that he learned of Warrenâs purported heritage only later, when he visited her home during a party and asked her about a family picture."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Deacon Mike said:


> The link you provided does not support your previous claim that it aided her in obtaining employment.


I was hoping that he'd use that link as it was posted earlier, and I knew it didn't support his statement. It's just conjuncture.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I AM Native American. 
Some of My ancestors may have come from a different continent. 
But I can't prove it. 
That's all any native American can say.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was hoping that he'd use that link as it was posted earlier, and I knew it didn't support his statement. It's just conjuncture.


What do you think is the reason she made the claim? Its been my experience most people don't claim something, true or not, unless they think it is going to get them something in return.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

watcher said:


> What do you think is the reason she made the claim? Its been my experience most people don't claim something, true or not, unless they think it is going to get them something in return.


No clue. Maybe she's proud of being American Indian?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was hoping that he'd use that link as it was posted earlier, and I knew it didn't support his statement. It's just conjuncture.


She admitted to lying on her applications
If that's cool with you, then I can't help you.
I won't support her as she's a liar, a fraud and just another rights stealing democrat who has you fooled.
I expect you to stop belittling Ben Carson over the left's lies and smear campaigns since nothing he supposedly did got him a job.
No wonder this country is circling the drain with idiots like Warren and her backers getting away with whatever they want to say.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> No clue. Maybe she's proud of being American Indian?


Except she's not an American Indian.
She lied remember?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> No clue. Maybe she's proud of being American Indian?





Cornhusker said:


> Except she's not an American Indian.
> 
> She lied remember?






I didn't think she claimed to be a Indian 
?

Perhaps she like me was simply tired of the baloney of entitlements and false divisions.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> And I'm pretty sure you and your cohorts get emails from the left filled with lies to spread
> By the way, I guess you hate Trump because he's native American?


Nope nary an email for me. I know absolutely zip about Trump's ancestry.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> No excuses
> Ben told the truth
> Politico lied and they admitted it.
> Doesn't matter, you guys cling to the lies, that's why they do it.'
> ...


I don't think you guys are aware that he has told more than one lie. He is earning quite a boatload of Pinocchio noses this campaign season. And sweriously they didn't vet Obama like this?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> She admitted to lying on her applications
> If that's cool with you, then I can't help you.
> I won't support her as she's a liar, a fraud and just another rights stealing democrat who has you fooled.
> I expect you to stop belittling Ben Carson over the left's lies and smear campaigns since nothing he supposedly did got him a job.
> No wonder this country is circling the drain with idiots like Warren and her backers getting away with whatever they want to say.


Boy you are just a walking bundle of falsehoods aren't you? I guess I will give you a poster of the day award for sheer number of untrue posts made. Every single thing you have said in this thread has been proven false and yet you keep right on going. It's kind of impressive really.

Elizabeth Warren has never said she lied. Never. 

This is fascinating if you are interested in how Native American ancestry is legally proven. Some of it is pure nonsense. You can be NA and yet if your family member wasn't listed in one roll taken at one time you are out of luck even if that family member is a sibling to a person on the roll.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I don't think you guys are aware that he has told more than one lie. He is earning quite a boatload of Pinocchio noses this campaign season. And sweriously they didn't vet Obama like this?


You are still buying the politico lies
they admitted they lied
And no, they didn't vet Obama, his school records are still sealed, people who knew him are dead and of course you are fine with all that.
You hate Carson because he's black, you must be a racist.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Boy you are just a walking bundle of falsehoods aren't you? I guess I will give you a poster of the day award for sheer number of untrue posts made. Every single thing you have said in this thread has been proven false and yet you keep right on going. It's kind of impressive really.
> 
> Elizabeth Warren has never said she lied. Never.
> 
> This is fascinating if you are interested in how Native American ancestry is legally proven. Some of it is pure nonsense. You can be NA and yet if your family member wasn't listed in one roll taken at one time you are out of luck even if that family member is a sibling to a person on the roll.


She admitted to claiming American Indian on her apps
She lied
She admitted to it
I know you admire people like her (liars and frauds) but don't push your bigoted opinions on me and tell me I'm lying.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> You are still buying the politico lies
> they admitted they lied
> And no, they didn't vet Obama, his school records are still sealed, people who knew him are dead and of course you are fine with all that.
> You hate Carson because he's black, you must be a racist.


You really need to get out there and do some research. It was CNN who tackled the knifing and hammer attacks. Then there is the Popeye's story and the Yale "honesty" story and on and on it goes. None of those came from Politico. They came from different news outlets reading his books.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> She admitted to claiming American Indian on her apps
> She lied
> She admitted to it
> I know you admire people like her (liars and frauds) but don't push your bigoted opinions on me and tell me I'm lying.


Okay let me make this super simple for you: Elizabeth Warren still says she is Native American so far as she knows. She sticks by her family history and recollections. So checking the box as a Native American was not a lie. 

I don't know how to make that any simpler for you. You think it isn't true. Yippee yay for you. You have no proof that it is a lie. She has more evidence it is true than you have that it is false.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Okay let me make this super simple for you: Elizabeth Warren still says she is Native American so far as she knows. She sticks by her family history and recollections. So checking the box as a Native American was not a lie.
> 
> I don't know how to make that any simpler for you. You think it isn't true. Yippee yay for you. You have no proof that it is a lie. She has more evidence it is true than you have that it is false.


The real question is what does it have to do with her proposal? Critical thinking involves analyzing the costs and benefits of an idea. Partisan reactionaries simply dismiss anything the other side comes up with because they're the other side. One allows a conversation and discussion to move forward. The other shows lack of thought and is designed to slow or stop discourse. It would be a refreshing change if one of these threads focused on the ideas or issues, not just the people who broached them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The real question is what does it have to do with her proposal? Critical thinking involves analyzing the costs and benefits of an idea. Partisan reactionaries simply dismiss anything the other side comes up with because they're the other side. One allows a conversation and discussion to move forward. The other shows lack of thought and is designed to slow or stop discourse. It would be a refreshing change if one of these threads focused on the ideas or issues, not just the people who broached them.



I agree with that. People get hung up on the person rather than the idea. After all, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

Her proposal?
Nice gesture, but overall, not very meaningful.
A one time payment doesn't solve the problem of the COLA not reflecting real inflation for real people. The gov't still thinks everything is low cost and coming up roses.
The basis for the payment invites an attitude of class warfare which is also unproductive.

Seniors get a one time raise which will go away and gain the resentment of the people that pay the majority of the taxes the gov't uses to make their future payments from.

What I call a lose/lose proposition.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I agree with that. People get hung up on the person rather than the idea. After all, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
> 
> Her proposal?
> Nice gesture, but overall, not very meaningful.
> ...


I'll agree that the raise for seniors is rather meaningless. Possibly the topic of another thread but with transportation costs down, grain prices down, and the cost of production as reflected in wages flat, why the prices of things like breads and cereals and anything containing grain products haven't fallen?

But let's look at eliminating the tax break on CEO retirement money.  That tax law gives both the CEO and the company a lessened tax burden. There seems to be a move towards the idea of a flat or fair tax and eliminating much of the tax code as it stands. You have to start somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. Tying it to a SS payment makes political, if not fiscal, sense.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I agree with that. People get hung up on the person rather than the idea. After all, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
> 
> Her proposal?
> Nice gesture, but overall, not very meaningful.
> ...


The remainder of the money (after the lump sum) from closing the "loop hole" goes into the Social Security fund. Over the years it could help shore up SS. 

What are the very wealthy CEO's going to do? Quit their jobs? Earn less? They may resent it but that doesn't mean they will stop earning. Does it?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The remainder of the money (after the lump sum) from closing the "loop hole" goes into the Social Security fund. Over the years it could help shore up SS.
> 
> What are the very wealthy CEO's going to do? Quit their jobs? Earn less? They may resent it but that doesn't mean they will stop earning. Does it?


No.
As I said, it doesn't fix the problem of the way the COLA is figured, so getting the money TO the gov't is covered.....getting it BACK isn't.
And the loophole referred to isn't the big one that would make SS solvent. That one is the cap on SS taxes above $135,000. Her loophole is only CEO performance bonuses.

:shrug:
Well, you asked.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> As I said, it doesn't fix the problem of the way the COLA is figured, so getting the money TO the gov't is covered.....getting it BACK isn't.
> And the loophole referred to isn't the big one that would make SS solvent. That one is the cap on SS taxes above $135,000. Her loophole is only CEO performance bonuses.
> 
> ...


It's still money for a COLA increase _and_ money into the SS fund, correct? All without raising taxes a dime. 

I did say help, not cure.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The naysayers are completely ignoring the fact that the lies and half truths are in his *autobiography and on film*. There is no way "he didn't lie", they can blame it on someone else, or to explain it away.
> 
> If you're going lie don't do it in print or on video, period.


And those prove that Political is the liar.
Carson was the top ROTC candidate. He went to the banquet. (this is all customary) THe PTB there offered him the free ride at WP. End of story. Even they alluded to "scholarship". Its how they talk to 17 y/os. A non issue but the left will keep yelling lies here when Progressives can't help but lie, constantly, like when its important-like to the FBI. Or on their applications. or when describing their arrival off aircraft: "Under fire".

Its also laughable that the LSM is trying so hard to prove a candidate DID NOT try to stab someone! Or DID NOT want to hit their mom w/hammer! BWhahaha! This is all substantiated in other writings, one of his mom's. even.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And the soirÃ©e continues.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. You've never heard of hair color? The "blonde dem woman" could actually have :gasp: dark hair. What is this black magick? :facepalm:
> 
> She is claiming a ggg (whatever) grandparent as Cherokee. Dang.


Yup & its a lie. Have you read up on what the Native Americans think of her lie? They know.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize who made the rude statement "heap big socialist", right? It wasn't Patchouli.


I cannot believe someone who refers to the Holy Bible as fairy tales thinks that is a rude statement.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> And those prove that Political is the liar.
> Carson was the top ROTC candidate. He went to the banquet. (this is all customary) THe PTB there offered him the free ride at WP. End of story. Even they alluded to "scholarship". Its how they talk to 17 y/os. A non issue but the left will keep yelling lies here when Progressives can't help but lie, constantly, like when its important-like to the FBI. Or on their applications. or when describing their arrival off aircraft: "Under fire".
> 
> Its also laughable that the LSM is trying so hard to prove a candidate DID NOT try to stab someone! Or DID NOT want to hit their mom w/hammer! BWhahaha! This is all substantiated in other writings, one of his mom's. even.


You (collective conservatives) will hear, understand, and believe what you want to about Ben Carson. Or any other politician for that matter. 

No amount of proof will be enough to change your (collective your) sealed minds. 

I'm not saying the other side of the aisle is much better, but the chance of at least listening with an unsealed mind is bit higher. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot believe someone who refers to the Holy Bible as fairy tales thinks that is a rude statement.


It's common knowledge that "heap big" is derogatory slur used on American Indians. If you want to cast aspersion on a race of people, have at it.

I'm done. There is nothing to be gained from this discussion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

A few reasons why many think Warren's a socialist:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/11/liz-warren-is-confused-why-do-they-think-im-a-socialist/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbe...ocialism-not-crony-capitalism-is-the-problem/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/elizabeth-warren-ron-paul-socialist_n_1081962.html

http://socialistworker.org/2014/10/20/a-progressive-face-on-regression


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The truth of the matter is that Carson had the nerve to leave the Democratic Plantation. That was his sin. There were no real lies. It is just something that the Democrat tracking dogs, in the media, have latched onto and are now trying to "run him to ground". They are now calling for a paternity test for some crazy women who once claimed that Carson fathered her child. If that doesn't work, look for a parade of white women who claim that Carson did or said something "inappropriate" to them. The Dems have been using this type of racist propaganda for centuries, and, the sad fact is, it usually works.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Okay let me make this super simple for you: Elizabeth Warren still says she is Native American so far as she knows. She sticks by her family history and recollections. So checking the box as a Native American was not a lie.
> 
> I don't know how to make that any simpler for you. You think it isn't true. Yippee yay for you. You have no proof that it is a lie. She has more evidence it is true than you have that it is false.


So she's still lying
She used it to get ahead, that's fraud
I know how you admire fraud on the left, so yay for you, you have a hero to drool over.
Personally, I hate liars and bigots, so that covers most of the loony left


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's common knowledge that "heap big" is derogatory slur used on American Indians. If you want to cast aspersion on a race of people, have at it.
> 
> I'm done. There is nothing to be gained from this discussion.


I think people are trying too hard to find offense.
Of course those that seem to find it are the ones who like to offend those who don't follow their narrow minded point of view.
I guess that's how the loony left is these days.
Demanding tolerance and giving none.
Hypocrisy and liberalism is pretty much the same thing these days.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The remainder of the money (after the lump sum) from closing the "loop hole" goes into the Social Security fund. Over the years it could help shore up SS.
> 
> What are the very wealthy CEO's going to do? Quit their jobs? Earn less? They may resent it but that doesn't mean they will stop earning. Does it?


Ever heard of the law of unforeseen consequences? There are always going to be ways to legally skirt tax laws. One thing I could see happening is a lot more companies moving their operating headquarters and CEOs out of the US to nations which have much better laws for them. With technology today a CEO can 'attend' a board meeting in NYC, broker a deal in LA and negotiate prices in Dallas all while sitting in Ireland or on a yacht out side the 12 mile US territorial limit. If a face to face meeting was needed he could either fly into the US for a few days or, more likely, set up a meeting in some really nice resort outside the US.

IOW, CEOs might not quit nor earn less but the US would lose ALL the taxes it was making before it decided to give the CEOs a bigger shaft.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's common knowledge that "heap big" is derogatory slur used on American Indians. If you want to cast aspersion on a race of people, have at it.
> 
> I'm done. There is nothing to be gained from this discussion.


Can you post a "cite"?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)




----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This whole thing a one heap big mess. Go have at it. I love a bowl of popcorn right now to see this back and forth Nonsense going on.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still money for a COLA increase _and_ money into the SS fund, correct? All without raising taxes a dime.
> 
> I did say help, not cure.


Excuse me but the reason there is no a cost of living increase is because according to the government the cost of living has not increased. This is an example of the law of unforeseen consequences. By twisting the numbers to make it appear that the economy is doing ok and there is no inflation those who are dependent on the government teat are not eligible for a COLA.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

watcher said:


> Excuse me but the reason there is no a cost of living increase is because according to the government the cost of living has not increased. This is an example of the law of unforeseen consequences. By twisting the numbers to make it appear that the economy is doing ok and there is no inflation those who are dependent on the government teat are not eligible for a COLA.


Except Congress


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Can you post a "cite"?


Sure. Any time you mock an entire race of people it's a slur. 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heap+big

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ertisements-featuring-native-americans-160896


Here's a particularly nasty piece of work:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...eth-warren-heap-big-squaw-indian-giver-146352


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure. Any time you mock an entire race of people it's a slur.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heap+big
> 
> ...


Mock an entire race?
How is that mocking an entire race?
I guess it's ok for you to mock others though because you are a "tolerant leftist"?
I think people who mock others shouldn't get their knickers in a twist at a perceived "mock"
Sweep your own porch before you talk about the dirt on someone else's


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Mock an entire race?
> How is that mocking an entire race?
> I guess it's ok for you to mock others though because you are a "tolerant leftist"?
> I think people who mock others shouldn't get their knickers in a twist at a perceived "mock"
> Sweep your own porch before you talk about the dirt on someone else's


That is so much bull feathers. slur my big foot~!
These liberals that think everything has to be their way or it is against everything and everyone. They are not going to control this country anymore~! 
This OH MY FEELINGS are hurt now I will run to the closest liberal judge and get satisfaction and gratification that I have control over everyone.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Mock an entire race?
> How is that mocking an entire race?
> I guess it's ok for you to mock others though because you are a "tolerant leftist"?
> I think people who mock others shouldn't get their knickers in a twist at a perceived "mock"
> Sweep your own porch before you talk about the dirt on someone else's


We aren't talking about me. We're discussing a prior post where someone said "heap big" in reference to American Indians. You asked for a cite, and I provided three. 

My knickers aren't twisted, and if you'd like to discuss me mocking something please start another thread. My post, that you responded to, is about "heap big" and the fact that it's a slur.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> We aren't talking about me. We're discussing a prior post where someone said "heap big" in reference to American Indians. You asked for a cite, and I provided three.
> 
> My knickers aren't twisted, and if you'd like to discuss me mocking something please start another thread. My post, that you responded to, is about "heap big" and the fact that it's a slur.


Yes boss
I forgot who I was trying to discuss with
If you want to be all offended over words, you go right ahead
What a nation of pansies we are, crying over words
I will expect you to talk about those who disagree with you without being offensive from now on


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Yes boss
> I forgot who I was trying to discuss with
> If you want to be all offended over words, you go right ahead
> What a nation of pansies we are, crying over words
> I will expect you to talk about those who disagree with you without being offensive from now on


You were diverting the topic and trying to spin it on me. It's not about me.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh my I was offended today by WORDS. What a mess this country is in.~!
What is that old saying "Stick and stones, will break my bones, but WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME".
WOW now the left can get offended by WORDS . :whistlin:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You were diverting the topic and trying to spin it on me. It's not about me.


You are the one who got offended


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> You are the one who got offended


Where did I say that? I'm not personally offended by the slur, embarrassed that it would be said, but not offended.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say that? I'm not personally offended by the slur, embarrassed that it would be said, but not offended.


Know what I find offensive and embarrassing?
A United States senator lying about her ancestry to get ahead is offensive to me.
These people are supposed to represent our country and they are poor representatives indeed.
What embarrasses me is that normally intelligent people, those tasked with selecting and electing out "representatives" would continue to make excuses for said "representatives" long after the lie has been established as such.
Why defend these cretins?
Why not boot them out and demand honesty and integrity?
Are we so partisan that we'll tolerate any wrongdoing as long as they have correct letter attached to their name?
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're idiots


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say that? I'm not personally offended by the slur, embarrassed that it would be said, but not offended.


I don't like slurs either
It's a stretch that the way we arrange words now is a "slur"
I don't consider "Heap big" a slur, it's just words from old movies.
I do consider being called "cracker", "Honky", "Casper" etc to be slurs, but I don't get offended.
I do find the hypocrisy amusing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Know what I find offensive and embarrassing?
> A United States senator lying about her ancestry to get ahead is offensive to me.
> These people are supposed to represent our country and they are poor representatives indeed.
> What embarrasses me is that normally intelligent people, those tasked with selecting and electing out "representatives" would continue to make excuses for said "representatives" long after the lie has been established as such.
> ...


No politician is completely honest, it's a personal thing to decided how much dishonestly that you are willing to accept. You have every right to be offended by something, but don't deride others for the same thing. 

I'm not partisan. I don't automatically dislike a politician because of their party. I recently posted that I voted for two "Rs" in my local election. I never vote just for party affiliation, I vote the issues.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> No politician is completely honest, it's a personal thing to decided how much dishonestly that you are willing to accept. You have every right to be offended by something, but don't deride others for the same thing.
> 
> I'm not partisan. I don't automatically dislike a politician because of their party. I recently posted that I voted for two "Rs" in my local election. I never vote just for party affiliation, I vote the issues.


I don't tolerate dishonesty or corruption
We need to all stick together, it's us against the government now.
They keep us divided, and Obama is the master at dividing people.
As long as we bicker amongst ourselves, they will continue to whittle away our rights, our liberty and our prosperity.
We have to come together as a cohesive people


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't tolerate dishonesty or corruption
> We need to all stick together, it's us against the government now.
> They keep us divided, and Obama is the master at dividing people.
> As long as we bicker amongst ourselves, they will continue to whittle away our rights, our liberty and our prosperity.
> We have to come together as a cohesive people


To an extent I agree with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't like slurs either
> It's a stretch that the way we arrange words now is a "slur"
> I don't consider "Heap big" a slur, it's just words from old movies.
> I do consider being called "cracker", "Honky", "Casper" etc to be slurs, but I don't get offended.
> I do find the hypocrisy amusing.


Which hypocrisy would that be?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I refuse to be offended


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I refuse to be offended too, have to much going on in real life.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Ever heard of the law of unforeseen consequences? There are always going to be ways to legally skirt tax laws. One thing I could see happening is a lot more companies moving their operating headquarters and CEOs out of the US to nations which have much better laws for them. With technology today a CEO can 'attend' a board meeting in NYC, broker a deal in LA and negotiate prices in Dallas all while sitting in Ireland or on a yacht out side the 12 mile US territorial limit. If a face to face meeting was needed he could either fly into the US for a few days or, more likely, set up a meeting in some really nice resort outside the US.
> 
> IOW, CEOs might not quit nor earn less but the US would lose ALL the taxes it was making before it decided to give the CEOs a bigger shaft.


Blackmail can be quite lucrative.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Blackmail can be quite lucrative.


 It is no more blackmail than moving to a safer neighborhood, to avoid burglary, is blackmail.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> It is no more blackmail than moving to a safer neighborhood, to avoid burglary, is blackmail.


Moving to a new neighborhood might be prudent. Telling your neighbors you're going to burn down your house and lower their property values unless they provide protection to you is blackmail. It's a bit sad that it's an accepted business practice today.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Know what I find offensive and embarrassing?
> 
> A United States senator lying about her ancestry to get ahead is offensive to me.



And offended about you lying about her. 

She was born here. 
That makes her a Native American. 
Not a immigrant or a Alien. 

Argue about her politics not the fact that she chooses the correct words.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Moving to a new neighborhood might be prudent. Telling your neighbors you're going to burn down your house and lower their property values unless they provide protection to you is blackmail. It's a bit sad that it's an accepted business practice today.


 The number 1 goal of a business is to make money. Without that, there are no jobs, there is no economic progress. It is the responsibility of the CEO's to ensure that the companies, that they lead, continue to make money. If a government wishes to use them as cash cows, they not only have the right, but, the responsibility to remove themselves from that jurisdiction and relocate to a place where profit can be maximized. 

If the gang leaders, in the neighborhoods, don't like it, they can change their practices.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Boo Hoo someone lied I'm offended.... See how dumb that looks.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> And those prove that Political is the liar.
> Carson was the top ROTC candidate. He went to the banquet. (this is all customary) THe PTB there offered him the free ride at WP. End of story. Even they alluded to "scholarship". Its how they talk to 17 y/os. A non issue but the left will keep yelling lies here when Progressives can't help but lie, constantly, like when its important-like to the FBI. Or on their applications. or when describing their arrival off aircraft: "Under fire".
> 
> Its also laughable that the LSM is trying so hard to prove a candidate DID NOT try to stab someone! Or DID NOT want to hit their mom w/hammer! BWhahaha! This is all substantiated in other writings, one of his mom's. even.


Donald Trump thinks Carson is crazy and anyone who believes him is stupid. Must be fun to be a Republican these days! ound:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-belt-stupid/


> Donald Trump on Thursday told Iowa's voters that those who support Ben Carson are "stupid" to believe the "crap" that is his life story, part of a stunning 95-minute tirade that included his most aggressive attack yet on his closest competitor.
> 
> Moments later, Trump told the crowd in Fort Dodge that he could not possibly understand why anyone supports Carson, who is essentially tied with Trump for support in the first-voting state.
> "How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" he asked.
> ...


Oh and by the way the thing from his mother was written AFTER he had her declared mentally incompetent...... 

Oh he just gets better and better.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> So she's still lying
> She used it to get ahead, that's fraud
> I know how you admire fraud on the left, so yay for you, you have a hero to drool over.
> Personally, I hate liars and bigots, so that covers most of the loony left


Again neither you nor anyone else has ever definitively proved she does not have NA in her family line. The only lies I see here on the ones you keep putting forward that have been amply disproven right here in this thread. We proved she did not get ahead in her career and never intended to do so by checking that box. We also proved her ancestry is based on family oral history and has never been proven to be untrue. 

I think it's safe to say there are plenty of loony liars and bigots on the Right too.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Loony liars and bigots is the definition of politicians. IMHO


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Again neither you nor anyone else has ever definitively proved she does not have NA in her family line. The only lies I see here on the ones you keep putting forward that have been amply disproven right here in this thread. *We proved she did not get ahead in her career and never intended to do so by checking that box.* We also proved her ancestry is based on family oral history and has never been proven to be untrue.
> 
> I think it's safe to say there are plenty of loony liars and bigots on the Right too.


I wouldn't call it "proved". We don't know what was inside her head when she did it. We don't know how much bearing her "minority status" had on her career. What people say afterwards in the midst of a political firestorm, and what was going thru their head at the time, are probably not the same thing. It was not definitely proved that she intentionally lied about her ethnicity, it was not definitively proved it aided her career - that's a more accurate way to describe it. 

It just doesn't pass the sniff test. If she has a little native DNA but no exposure to the culture, it is not honest to identify herself that way. Does she speak the language? Does she know any of the songs and traditional stories, such as the creation story? Would she be able to pick out the style and technique of "her" tribe's weapons, clothing, etc. from any other? I'm betting not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> I wouldn't call it "proved". We don't know what was inside her head when she did it. We don't know how much bearing her "minority status" had on her career. What people say afterwards in the midst of a political firestorm, and what was going thru their head at the time, are probably not the same thing. It was not definitely proved that she intentionally lied about her ethnicity, it was not definitively proved it aided her career - that's a more accurate way to describe it.
> 
> It just doesn't pass the sniff test. If she has a little native DNA but no exposure to the culture, it is not honest to identify herself that way. Does she speak the language? Does she know any of the songs and traditional stories, such as the creation story? Would she be able to pick out the style and technique of "her" tribe's weapons, clothing, etc. from any other? I'm betting not.


Using your criteria the full blood American Indians taken from their families and raised in schools in the east, Carlisle Indian School among them, wouldn't be able to identify themselves as Native American. Over 10,000 children attended Carlisle alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_Indian_Industrial_School


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Using your criteria the full blood American Indians taken from their families and raised in schools in the east, Carlisle Indian School among them, wouldn't be able to identify themselves as Native American. Over 10,000 children attended Carlisle alone.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_Indian_Industrial_School


If the "erase all the Indian off those kids" boarding schools were still up and running, I would have a different criteria for my personal definition of "Indian cred". But since that practice ended decades ago, probably close to 100 years now, Ms. Warren doesn't have that excuse either.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> If the "erase all the Indian off those kids" boarding schools were still up and running, I would have a different criteria for my personal definition of "Indian cred". But since that practice ended decades ago, probably close to 100 years now, Ms. Warren doesn't have that excuse either.


I wasn't using it as an excuse for Elizabeth Warren. I was using it to bring your "sniff test" criteria to light as faulty.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> If the "erase all the Indian off those kids" boarding schools were still up and running, I would have a different criteria for my personal definition of "Indian cred". But since that practice ended decades ago, probably close to 100 years now, Ms. Warren doesn't have that excuse either.


I see we're back on the Indian thing again...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I wasn't using it as an excuse for Elizabeth Warren. I was using it to bring your "sniff test" criteria to light as faulty.


And you are over-achieving! My personal opinion doesn't need correcting thank you anyway. 

You are free to use a different sniff test. Mark your next census "Native American". Go to the annual pow wow. Milk that drop of native blood for all its worth if it makes you happy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> The number 1 goal of a business is to make money. Without that, there are no jobs, there is no economic progress. It is the responsibility of the CEO's to ensure that the companies, that they lead, continue to make money.



Your last phrase hints that your premise is wrong. 
The key word in there is CONTINUE !
The number one goal of many businesses is to continue. 

Obviously you can't make money in the future if you don't survive the now. 
With that in mind being a good neighbor becomes far more important.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> I wouldn't call it "proved". We don't know what was inside her head when she did it. We don't know how much bearing her "minority status" had on her career. What people say afterwards in the midst of a political firestorm, and what was going thru their head at the time, are probably not the same thing. It was not definitely proved that she intentionally lied about her ethnicity, it was not definitively proved it aided her career - that's a more accurate way to describe it.
> 
> It just doesn't pass the sniff test. If she has a little native DNA but no exposure to the culture, it is not honest to identify herself that way. Does she speak the language? Does she know any of the songs and traditional stories, such as the creation story? Would she be able to pick out the style and technique of "her" tribe's weapons, clothing, etc. from any other? I'm betting not.





MO_cows said:


> If the "erase all the Indian off those kids" boarding schools were still up and running, I would have a different criteria for my personal definition of "Indian cred". But since that practice ended decades ago, probably close to 100 years now, Ms. Warren doesn't have that excuse either.



I've got Native blood, the "legal minimum" and I could probably prove it, barely.
I haven't and I won't. I am what I am, I know what I know, and I wouldn't dare question my mother and grandmother's honesty.
That blood is a spiritual feeling that transcends what men put on paper.

I now live near Cherokee NC, where the ones who escaped the Trail of Tears remained all this time, hiding and waiting out the enemy.
I've been to the tribal land a few times and the outward appearance is still easy to see.
But I found your statements about the schools being closed now, profoundly ignorant.
Even within the tribe, there is a generational loss in the language and customs. That is a force of time that isn't easily fought, kids grow up, learn new ways, assimilate and the old ways are lost to time.
That happens in the best case scenario, the effect of tearing families apart, forbidding the native language from being spoken and learned, outlawing tribal ways had a devastating effect and what it was meant to do was accomplished successfully.
To think that because that ceased 100 years ago, that the result could be reversed and native language and customs would revert back, is unrealistic.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I've got Native blood, the "legal minimum" and I could probably prove it, barely.
> I haven't and I won't. I am what I am, I know what I know, and I wouldn't dare question my mother and grandmother's honesty.
> That blood is a spiritual feeling that transcends what men put on paper.
> 
> ...


I don't live too far away from Carlisle, and there was an article in the local paper about the Indian Industrial School. It prompted me to look into it further, and it is just heartbreaking. I read further about Luther Standing Bear and his experience, it was horrible to take Native kids away from their families and their traditions.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Not enough info there to form an informed opinion. What is this "CEO loophole" they are talking about closing??? And what is the logic of linking SS recipients to CEO pay? Just something that sounded "fair"?
> 
> I fail to understand why SS and Medicare tax get cut off at $113k in salary. Anything you make over that is exempt. Right now there is a temporary tax for Medicare to a higher limit. But it would make a lot more sense to lower the percentages taken for SS and MC and collect them on all the salary earned, period.


SS is supposed to somewhat reflect what you pay in, you get out.

Since there are limits on how much you can take out, the cutoff on how much you have to pay in makes perfect sense?

If you want to uncap the tax, then you also need to uncap the payouts. And that would lead to some humugous checks to these same folks.



All in all, this preposal appears to be a really bad politics play, whip folks up into stealing from the rich and give to the poor.

It really makes no sense at all.

SS is supposed to be an assistance to retired folk to protect them from inflation. We just need to match the expenditures to the collections of it. And keep the other govt from stealing the fund.

When it was formed, SS had 7 taxpayers funding one retired person, and that worked well.

Now we have what, 3 taxpayers funding a retired person?

As we head to a more socialistic society, we will continue to have less and less taxpayers and more and more living off govt. so the SS system will continue to break down.

You won't fix that with a one time tax on anyone. And you won't fix it by bumping up the pay out for one year. and one time taxes are never 'one time'.

Well I take that back. My state had a 4% sales tax for many years. They decided they needed more, so the set a 'temporary tax' for only one year, to be 5% sales tax. But repeated over and over it was only temporary, one year only, it was no way no how permanent. It was only for a one time, one year.

Well, the next year, they passed a 6% sales tax. So, indeed, the 5% tax was only temporary for one year!


Anyhow, this here deal is smoke and mirrors. It does not address the problems SS faces, nor does it balance or close any loopholes or nothing.

Paul


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambler said:


> stealing from the rich and give to the poor.


In this case it might be more like taking from the young and giving to the old. No?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> In this case it might be more like taking from the young and giving to the old. No?


If that is true then what difference would that make? 

Are you saying that every CEO is young?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambler said:


> When it was formed, SS had 7 taxpayers funding one retired person, and that worked well.
> 
> Now we have what, 3 taxpayers funding a retired person?


It's not that bad, but what you're concerned about is a temporary trend. The baby boomers are retiring, and there are a lot of them. But eventually they'll die off and there won't be so many old people to support.

It's not like this wasn't foreseen. FICA collected $2.7 trillion (yes, with a "t") more than was paid out to the greatest generation. So that money was supposed to be invested for baby boomer retirement.

But you know what? After paying up to 15% of my pay into FICA for 40 over years I wouldn't feel a bit guilty taking an extra $500 this year.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Are you saying that every CEO is young?


No. But they still pay taxes, don't they?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I see we're back on the Indian thing again...


LOL, whoops........

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.........

I did some math on this proposal.
SS is somewhere around a $800 billion annual account. Billion with a "B".
The total of all the CEO's retirement income looking to be taxed by this is 4.9 billion, call it 5.

Assuming you weren't going to take every penny and taxed it 10%, you'd raise $500,000,000 (500 million) this year to be distributed.
That won't even cover the one time payment and sure won't put a dent in the SS fund's deficit.
I still say, "Nice try, but no."


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's not that bad, but what you're concerned about is a temporary trend. The baby boomers are retiring, and there are a lot of them. But eventually they'll die off and there won't be so many old people to support.
> 
> It's not like this wasn't foreseen. FICA collected $2.7 trillion (yes, with a "t") more than was paid out to the greatest generation. So that money was supposed to be invested for baby boomer retirement.
> 
> But you know what? After paying up to 15% of my pay into FICA for 40 over years I wouldn't feel a bit guilty taking an extra $500 this year.


Repeating stuff doesn't make it true. We went thru this already recently. YOU didn't pay in 15%, not even close to that. Your employer paid the matching part and even today it's only 12.4%. 40 years ago it was way less. And yeah, yeah, yeah if your employer wouldn't have paid their half, you would have made more money. And I'm selling swampland in Arizona, want some? 

Just because you don't feel guilty about it doesn't make it the right thing to do for the whole country. Who wouldn't love to give all the old folks a bonus? But since we're still borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent, not a very prudent thing to do!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Blackmail can be quite lucrative.


Worked for Obama


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which hypocrisy would that be?


They are drybabies if the get called a name, and certain words are off limits, but they have no problem hurling racial slurs
Hypocrisy.
It's a liberal thing


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> They are drybabies if the get called a name, and certain words are off limits, but they have no problem hurling racial slurs
> Hypocrisy.
> It's a liberal thing


A "liberal thing"? Liberals (all liberals?) hurling racial slurs? In what situation would calling someone a name be appropriate? Can you explain these things, please?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> A "liberal thing"? Liberals (all liberals?) hurling racial slurs? In what situation would calling someone a name be appropriate? Can you explain these things, please?


Where did I say it was appropriate?
I'm saying liberals, blacks, others can call me names and that's ok, but the crybabies get called a name back and they burn down the town.
That's hypocrisy, and that's a liberal thing


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I've got Native blood, the "legal minimum" and I could probably prove it, barely.
> I haven't and I won't. I am what I am, I know what I know, and I wouldn't dare question my mother and grandmother's honesty.
> That blood is a spiritual feeling that transcends what men put on paper.
> 
> ...


Someone who identifies so strongly with that culture, that they use it as their ethnic identity in the school directory, I would expect them to have knowledge of it, be steeped in it. It is a reasonable expectation, has nothing to do with ignorance. 

Gee today my personal opinion needs correcting, and now I'm ignorant. I just feel so valued and special to be here, NOT! 

A lot of effort has been put into preserving native culture, both within and outside of the tribes. The rest of America gained enlightenment of the value of those cultures and set about preserving it just about as zealously as they tried to wipe it out before.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Where did I say it was appropriate?
> I'm saying liberals, blacks, others can call me names and that's ok, but the crybabies get called a name back and they burn down the town.
> That's hypocrisy, and that's a liberal thing



Do you realize you're whining while calling someone a crybaby ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> Someone who identifies so strongly with that culture, that they use it as their ethnic identity in the school directory, I would expect them to have knowledge of it, be steeped in it. It is a reasonable expectation, has nothing to do with ignorance.
> 
> Gee today my personal opinion needs correcting, and now I'm ignorant. I just feel so valued and special to be here, NOT!
> 
> A lot of effort has been put into preserving native culture, both within and outside of the tribes. The rest of America gained enlightenment of the value of those cultures and *set about preserving it just about as zealously as they tried to wipe it out before.*


I know, sorry about that. 
I searched for a synonym, because ignorant usually has a negative connotation, but it just means ya don't know.
I've been guilty of it, no biggie. 

Gotta disagree with you on the bold part though.
Yeah, it takes a huge effort to hang on to culture, especially a dying one.
But you can believe a whole more effort went into eliminating the American Indian, than there was in preserving it, much less trying to restore it. A little protection is about all anyone can expect.
The tribes that did the most good for themselves, were the ones that kept as much of their land and independence.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Where did I say it was appropriate?
> I'm saying liberals, blacks, others can call me names and that's ok, but the crybabies get called a name back and they burn down the town.
> That's hypocrisy, and that's a liberal thing


You implied that when they are called names, they cry. So based on that when is it appropriate to name call? What names are you called? Do all liberals, blacks, and others (who are the others?) call you names? Do liberals call you names on this forum? What names, what liberals?

Are you saying that hypocrisy is only a liberal thing? Cuz that dog don't hunt.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Someone who identifies so strongly with that culture, that they use it as their ethnic identity in the school directory, I would expect them to have knowledge of it, be steeped in it. It is a reasonable expectation, has nothing to do with ignorance.
> 
> Gee today my personal opinion needs correcting, and now I'm ignorant. I just feel so valued and special to be here, NOT!
> 
> A lot of effort has been put into preserving native culture, both within and outside of the tribes. The rest of America gained enlightenment of the value of those cultures and set about preserving it just about as zealously as they tried to wipe it out before.


Sigh. She checked a box. She never promoted herself as American Indian.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> Do you realize you're whining while calling someone a crybaby ?


Really?
I'm not the one being all butt hurt over the arrangement of words
I'm not PC, I'm a grown up
Sue me


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You implied that when they are called names, they cry. So based on that when is it appropriate to name call? What names are you called? Do all liberals, blacks, and others (who are the others?) call you names? Do liberals call you names on this forum? What names, what liberals?
> 
> Are you saying that hypocrisy is only a liberal thing? Cuz that dog don't hunt.


Yes, I have been called names
I didn't burn the town down, I didn't involve a racist president, I didn't get a racist group like aclu involved.
I'm a grown up, try it sometime


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. She checked a box. She never promoted herself as American Indian.


Yes she did


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Yes she did


I've asked you multiples times for a cite that substantiates that she used her American Indian ancestry to further her career. You tried, and failed. It may be your opinion that she used it to further her career, and you know what they say about opinions...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The truth of the matter is that Carson had the nerve to leave the Democratic Plantation. That was his sin. There were no real lies. It is just something that the Democrat tracking dogs, in the media, have latched onto and are now trying to "run him to ground". They are now calling for a paternity test for some crazy women who once claimed that Carson fathered her child. If that doesn't work, look for a parade of white women who claim that Carson did or said something "inappropriate" to them. The Dems have been using this type of racist propaganda for centuries, and, the sad fact is, it usually works.


Post of the day award.

Look for all the stuff on BillyBoy to come out as well.
BWHAHahaha!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Yes she did


Ya really why else would she have said such a stupid thing. LIE that is. LOL


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Anything that falls out of Liawtha's mouth is pure and utter manure.

I am 53, and doubt I will *ever see a single dime I paid into SS*

I plan NOT seeing a red cent of it.

Therefore, I will not be disappointed. It is *MY* job to make sure I can survive, not the goobermints.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's weird to watch both sides arguing a lie. 
On side says she never promoted her self as a Indian. 
Ok that's fair. She didn't. She claimed to be native American. She is. 
The other side says she's not a Indian. That's fair she's not. 
That's a life style she doesn't live. 

But she is like she claimed a Native American. She was born here. There seems to be plenty of proof.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> It's weird to watch both sides arguing a lie.
> On side says she never promoted her self as a Indian.
> Ok that's fair. She didn't. She claimed to be native American. She is.
> The other side says she's not a Indian. That's fair she's not.
> ...


Natural born citizen.
Native American.

There is a distinction between the two. Google is your friend.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right someone trying to say something like ANYONE born in the USA is native American is laughable at best, and sad all the way around. Knowledge is a good thing but sometimes I wonder about how smart SOME REALLY are in this country. LOL


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure. Any time you mock an entire race of people it's a slur.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heap+big
> 
> ...


So when a black comedian makes fun of how black people talk is he being racist?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> So when a black comedian makes fun of how black people talk is he being racist?


Yes but if they are truly funny they can make fun of white people too and nobody cares. Richard Pryor anyone?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> Natural born citizen.
> Native American.
> 
> There is a distinction between the two. Google is your friend.



Google is not your friend Google is the lowest common denominator. 
When you say someone is a native Californian, native New Yorker, or Native swiss you mean they were born there. 

Now look at the first peoples. 
The best science we have says that all people in the Americas have ancestors that immigrated here. 
We are all the same. 
It's fine to define different tribes or even massive groups of tribes. 

But native American is the biggest of them all. It is those of us that were born here.


----------

