Before Social Security???

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and that reasoning can be applied by anyone, anywhere, at anytime?

When it's an unprovoked terrorist attack against innocent civilians during time of peace, I would say yes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
When it's an unprovoked terrorist attack against innocent civilians during time of peace, I would say yes.

then using that reasoning, a village in the middle east that suddenly experiences missiles raining down on them and kills some of their friends and family, that could be considered a terrorist attack. Would they not have the right to take action first, ask the why later?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then using that reasoning, a village in the middle east that suddenly experiences missiles raining down on them and kills some of their friends and family, that could be considered a terrorist attack. Would they not have the right to take action first, ask the why later?

Nice try, too bad it wasn't even remotely a direct attack against innocent civilians during time of peace.

In case you didn't notice, there is a WAR in Iraq. innocents getting killed during war sucks but isn't even comparable to a terrorist attack MEANT to kill the innocent civilians.

 

[jimnyc]

Still awaiting a response on how you can consider accidental civilian deaths a terrorist attack like what was done to our nation when 3,000 citizens lost their lives.

 

[DKSuddeth]

sorry it took me so long jim, I was getting ready to go to work.

Nice try, too bad it wasn't even remotely a direct attack against innocent civilians during time of peace.

and the family that loses a child, or children, due to accidental death from missile attacks is supposed to care about the difference? explain how that is.

In case you didn't notice, there is a WAR in Iraq. innocents getting killed during war sucks but isn't even comparable to a terrorist attack MEANT to kill the innocent civilians.

I wasn't speaking just of Iraq, I also question your value of life when you can callously dismiss the deaths of civilians during 'war' simply because its war. Again, how is the mother that loses a child, whether its in war, terrorism, or accidental aftermath of either, supposed to take it anything other than personally?

Still awaiting a response on how you can consider accidental civilian deaths a terrorist attack like what was done to our nation when 3,000 citizens lost their lives.

As I've done in the past, I've tried to show you that its all in the viewpoint of the person it happens to. You say that in war, civilian deaths are regrettable but because its war they are going to happen regardless. I'm sure the families affected by it completely understand

Maybe if people were to attempt forethought and perspective from the opposite side we'd see alot less violence.

 

[jimnyc]

and the family that loses a child, or children, due to accidental death from missile attacks is supposed to care about the difference? explain how that is.

I didn't say they were supposed to care, but that doesn't negate the fact that one was a terrorist attack and the other was damage done as a result of war. The 2 just aren't comparable.

I wasn't speaking just of Iraq, I also question your value of life when you can callously dismiss the deaths of civilians during 'war' simply because its war. Again, how is the mother that loses a child, whether its in war, terrorism, or accidental aftermath of either, supposed to take it anything other than personally?

How did I dismiss anything? I merely stated the actions were 2 totally different actions. One was murder.

As I've done in the past, I've tried to show you that its all in the viewpoint of the person it happens to. You say that in war, civilian deaths are regrettable but because its war they are going to happen regardless. I'm sure the families affected by it completely understand

It doesn't matter how they fell. One was a terrorist attack and one wasn't. You are trying to equate the 2 which is ridiculous.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Again, you fail to see the point I'm making. The person(s) affected by the deaths will not care about the difference. To the family that loses loved ones from the bombings will, and do, consider it murder as well. Are we then supposed to discount their feelings?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Again, you fail to see the point I'm making. The person(s) affected by the deaths will not care about the difference. To the family that loses loved ones from the bombings will, and do, consider it murder as well. Are we then supposed to discount their feelings?

And what if someone who lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident considered their loss a terrorist attack, should we classify it as so?

No reasonable person will consider what the USA has done as terrorist attacks.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Again, you fail to see the point I'm making. The person(s) affected by the deaths will not care about the difference. To the family that loses loved ones from the bombings will, and do, consider it murder as well. Are we then supposed to discount their feelings?

"War is hell" General George S Patton

 

[DKSuddeth]

Jim, because of that attitude, there will never be an end to terrorism. Our 'accidents' will continue to foment hatred against the US and that will inspire those who hate us to make the US feel its pain. Thanks for contributing.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Jim, because of that attitude, there will never be an end to terrorism. Our 'accidents' will continue to foment hatred against the US and that will inspire those who hate us to make the US feel its pain. Thanks for contributing.

You are wrong, as usual, just deal with it. Anyone that tries to equate what happened to the USA on 9/11 to incidental deaths as a part of war is an idiot.

Go whine to someone who gives a rats ass about you, your wife and your problems. You showed your true colors by admitting you didn't have a problem with a WORSE unemployment problem when Clinton was in office because YOU had a job.

You are no more than a typical liberal whining about what you are clueless about.

I won't thank you for your contribution, as there was none, as usual.

 

[OCA]

I think Dk's problem is that he confuses war with feelings. War is not or has never been about taking feelings into consideration its about achieving objectives with as little cost in lives to YOUR side as possible. A military force cannot worry about civilian casualties and still get things done, oh they will do their level best to minimize it but its gonna happen thats war. Fortunately the U.S. Military thinks like me.

These terrorists are hypocrites because they basically attack civilians except for a couple of instances then cry foul when their civilians are killed. Makes no sense.

 

[DKSuddeth]

blah blah blah. meaningles drivel from you.

you are incapable of rationalizing how others feel which is why you will always be on the defensive about your actions.

You are wrong, as usual, just deal with it. Anyone that tries to equate what happened to the USA on 9/11 to incidental deaths as a part of war is an idiot.

and anyone who thinks I was trying to equate the two is in need of comprehension classes. Again, I'm telling you how they will FEEL, not what is considered right and wrong. But thats apparently something you can't, or refuse, to deal with for fear it will show you reality.

Go whine to someone who gives a rats ass about you, your wife and your problems. You showed your true colors by admitting you didn't have a problem with a WORSE unemployment problem when Clinton was in office because YOU had a job.

Thinking that I'm 'whining' about my problems is idiotic. Its only your defense mechanisms kicking in because, yet again, you're afraid of having to deal with the reality of peoples states of mind. That's your problem, not mine, so deal with that. I used myself as an example of the majority of people in that situation, If you are unable to see that as fact, then you are the one in need of a reality check.

You are no more than a typical liberal whining about what you are clueless about.

And you are no more than a typical republican whining about how your's is the one true reality and why can't anyone see that i'm right and they are wrong, wahh, wahh, wahh. why don't YOU try getting a clue about people? It's obvious I have more clues than you do.

I won't thank you for your contribution, as there was none, as usual.

No thanks was asked for, it's pitiable that you are unwilling to accept basic human emotions as a fact. But that would be just another failing on your part.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
I think Dk's problem is that he confuses war with feelings. War is not or has never been about taking feelings into consideration its about achieving objectives with as little cost in lives to YOUR side as possible. A military force cannot worry about civilian casualties and still get things done, oh they will do their level best to minimize it but its gonna happen thats war. Fortunately the U.S. Military thinks like me.

These terrorists are hypocrites because they basically attack civilians except for a couple of instances then cry foul when their civilians are killed. Makes no sense.

I confuse nothing. You confuse the fact that I was talking about events years before the war, not the war itself.

We commit the same wrongs that other countries do yet feel completely justified in our actions as we condemn the others. How utterly hypocritical of us. Thats you thinking like the government, not the military.

 

[jimnyc]

and anyone who thinks I was trying to equate the two is in need of comprehension classes. Again, I'm telling you how they will FEEL, not what is considered right and wrong. But thats apparently something you can't, or refuse, to deal with for fear it will show you reality.

I really don't care how they feel. You originally asked if it would be ok for others to respond in the same manner as the US did. You then claim they "feel" the same way as a result of our bombings. Yes, you DID try to make a connection between the 2. You are just simply wrong, regardless of what anyone who lost loved ones feels. One was a terror attack and one wasn't.

Thinking that I'm 'whining' about my problems is idiotic. Its only your defense mechanisms kicking in because, yet again, you're afraid of having to deal with the reality of peoples states of mind. That's your problem, not mine, so deal with that. I used myself as an example of the majority of people in that situation, If you are unable to see that as fact, then you are the one in need of a reality check.

Bottom line, you have whined about your wife and unemployment issues so many times on this board alone that I lost count. I believe this says more about the dope who is unemployed than the state of our nation. More jobs, unemployment at extremely low rate, DK unemployed. Blame no one but yourself. Why don't you spend less time whining and more time trying to find an appropriate job.

And you are no more than a typical republican whining about how your's is the one true reality and why can't anyone see that i'm right and they are wrong, wahh, wahh, wahh. why don't YOU try getting a clue about people? It's obvious I have more clues than you do.

I haven't whined, idiot!

I'm quite happy with the economy and the current job growth. Ok, so you have more of a clue than I do. Why is it that you don't see me whining incessantly about my wife and a job? BECAUSE I HAVE AN EDUCATION AND DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THOSE PROBLEMS.

No thanks was asked for, it's pitiable that you are unwilling to accept basic human emotions as a fact. But that would be just another failing on your part.

Emotions aren't factual, idiot!

Get it through your thick skull, no one gives a fuck about your wifes problems or your job issues. Looks like you have yourself to blame, but instead you'd rather blame the Bush administration. You claim you are so smart and that you know so ,uch that you have learned on your own. Why are so many people with an education getting IT jobs left and right? That's right, you fucked up! You were a cheap ass with your education and now you and your wife pay the price. Tough shit, deal with your own problems that YOU created.

 

[DKSuddeth]

thanks jim, for all the positive feedback

this is why, after only a few more years of your parties bullshit, that you will be dismissed again for another decade. Then we'll see who whines about stupid shit like gay marriages and liberals.

oh, I forgot, that was you, wasn't it?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
thanks jim, for all the positive feedback

this is why, after only a few more years of your parties bullshit, that you will be dismissed again for another decade. Then we'll see who whines about stupid shit like gay marriages and liberals.

oh, I forgot, that was you, wasn't it?

I'll be against gay marriage and liberals regardless of whom is running the white house. And I certainly won't blame a democratic president if I should be unemployed. I won't blame them if queers start marrying one another, and I won't blame them for all the foaming at the mouth, clueless liberals.

And should I be stupid enough to think an education is meaningless, and I can't provide for my family or wife, I won't blame the Dems for that either.

We are all in control of our own destiny's. You chose a route in life and you paid the price for a lack of education. Then because you fall on hard times you want to blame the current administration. When times were even tougher when Clinton was in office, you were quiet since you had a job. I guess that makes the way they ran the economy ok since it didn't effect you. Now you somehow think it's wrong of employed people to not have a problem with the current economy. They're doing the exact same thing that you did in the 90's!! The only difference is that now there are more jobs and the economy is much stronger and the unemployment rate is lower.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wasn't speaking just of Iraq, I also question your value of life

I have questioned your value of life on several other threads DK, I'm not sure you wanted to go here. You have showed in other posts that life is less sacred to you than you would like us to believe.

you are incapable of rationalizing how others feel which is why you will always be on the defensive about your actions

rationalize and feel don't even belong in the same sentence.
Feel less, think more DK

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
Ok, Here is your history lesson. Social Security was passed because of the rampant poverty rate amongst senior citizens. Most were forced into what they called "County Homes" which were essential poor farms. Families did what they could, but seniors had nothing to fall back on. Social Security was designed to provide seniors with a "pension" so that they could continue to live at home. The system was set up so that workers would pay into the fund and then at retirement age recieve their pensions. Social Security was supported far more than most New Deal programs; even Conservative Republicans voted for it. It stood to reason, seniors had helped to build America, so America should thank them by providing a small pension. Of course the life expectancy ran closer to 65 then. Now more people than ever are living into their 80s, so the system is becoming more strained. I would agree that some updating needs to occur.

FDR was hardly a "socialist" He acted first to help banks and businesses by infusing banks with cash. Roosevelt also acted to create jobs and infrastructure at the same time. It was FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority that brought electricity to many parts of the south. It was FDRs National Recovery Administration that kept the film industry alive. Other FDR programs increased federal wildlife reserves, helped farmers, and built roads, bridges and dams. Roosevelt gave his life for his country. I would point out that Roosevelt did not nationalize a single industry. The most important think FDR did was to provide calm, stable leadership to a country brought to its knees by economic depression. FDR gave people hope.

FDR didn't "give half of Europe to the commies" Stalin had already taken it before we got to Berlin. There was little FDR could've done about it. And don't forget, Russia lost a lot of people fighting the Nazis. Had it not been for their toughness, the world might be a much different place today. Their obviously flawed political system, notwithstanding, the Russians probably saved the world from the Nazis. They held and held and held the eastern front until the U.S., Britain and other allies could get an attack going from the West. If you don't believe pick up an American History book.

That's the history folks, take it or leave it.

acludem

While I appreciate the history lesson, I do believe that FDR had a socialist agenda. He advocated for the rich to pay more than the poor, in terms of percentage and actual dollars, provided social services under the auspices of the federal government, he subsidized industry and agriculture using federal money and he created a system of social security which became a cauldron of free things for citizens.

Clearly, FDR believed that those who didn't have should get from those who have more; that the government's responsibility is to equalize income and ownership; and, that if a free market society doesn't work out for whatever reason the government should put itself in hock to help people out. That is a socialist agenda in my book. And, in my opinion, is the reason that this country is chock full of sycophants.

Not a good president or precedent at all.

 

[acludem]

FDR's program put people back to work. Social Security was designed for people who were too old to work. Do you support throwing these people out on the street? Perhaps you'd like to start the system of expensive county homes back up? As far as the tax system, yes rich people paid more. Of course during the depression a few rich people were the only ones with any money. If you think Roosevelt was for taxing the rich more read something about a man named Huey Long. He was one of Roosevelt's primary critics. Another interesting character is Father Coughlin who was the original talk radio host. Their criticism was that Roosevelt wasn't doing enough.

Free markets cannot exist in a vacuum. The main problem with libertarian economic philosphy is that it fails to take into account the fact the people are greedy, selfish bastards for the most part. It assumes that those in the market will always do right, and one only need say "Martha Stewart" to prove that wrong.

FDR's program was not socialist, though you seem to be using "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. Most European countries today are Social Democracies. That is, for example in Britain, where the government is democratically elected, there is a free market economy, but the government owns some industries, and there is universal health care. Communism takes Socialism and adds absolute government ownership of all industry, eliminates the democracy, and also adds complete income redistribution. FDR's program was not Socialist or Communist. He did not take control of industry. He did not set up universal health care. He did not have full redistribution of income. FDR was, in a lot of ways, Conservative. The first few parts of the New Deal were actually ideas from Hoover's (Republican) administration that Roosevelt liked and implemented. Hoover was a libertarian before that party even existed.

acludem