BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM

Melissa:

If your thesaurus fails you, I could add a few candidates, having long experience with such matters....

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 01:20 PM

Bee you have impressive ideas.



Ladies and Gentlemen this issue far exceeds one nuclear treaty with Russia and all our NATO allies.

The 99% likelihood of complete Republican obstruction of the treaty, the debt ceiling, the budget and the financial reform we need to keep from falling to total default and bankruptcy is the most serious challenge this nation has seen since WW 2. There is a coming gun slinging showdown. There is a looming ultimate game of chicken.

I would compare the jeopardy we are in due to the obstructionist gamble by Republicans to the Apollo 13 mission.

My fellow Americans, We have a problem.

Only its not 3 crew members but the entire population and global economy with the exception of billionaires. It is like our entire country is an exploded spacecraft that is damaged so badly we may not survive. NASA had the advantage of everyone working together to solve the problems with a united effort. They had to make new parts and invent new methods of doing things including a manual burn for course corrections.

This nation has a house divided and will not stand for another 4 critical years of making the destruction of a Presidency more important than the survival of the nation at large. IS the greatest mission we have the destruction of a president to usher in a Republican president in 2012? Is a real default of the American dollar worth it?

The fight ahead will in itself drain critical power and air.
The demand of the Republicans (the 0 vote gang) is to keep billionaires from paying anymore taxes than they do now and to roll them back further over time. They see an opportunity to hold all issues hostage and diminish or abolish social security, Medicare, welfare and all other entitlements and environmental progress.

This real and coming political war and its consequences may include new presidential orders, government shutdown, loss of critical government workers and the fatal delay or entire loss of establishing a new debt ceiling leading to default resulting in a very real hyperinflation of the US dollar.

The FOX propaganda will claim that Obama is using virtual martial law and is trying to take over the country like Hitler. Social anguish, violence and demonstrations are in the offing. Some of the only tools to save us from a dreadful default collapse and the harm from extended government shut downs are presidential orders and in the extreme, the closing of Congress.



We have discussed many issues here from the terrorist attacks on our friends and citizens and the economic take over and the Supreme Court making corporations more alive and powerful than real people. We have discussed the economic take over by a tenth of one percent of Americans.
BUT this looming challenge will be the greatest standoff ever played and will lead to great harm for one or both sides, when only one side (the common good) could save our desperate Apollo 13 mission, the United States of America.

Wall St. has much to lose in this damaged mission. In the 11th hour they will certainly pressure their Republicans to stand down and hope that there is time to avoid global economic default. But once the game is started there are no guarantees that global anxiety and enemy opportunists will take the ball out of our hands as global fear and mob mentality rule that dark day of default.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 08:22 PM

"Sometimes I wonder if it's entirely coincidental that so many rude terms for female body parts are used as dismissive insults."

If the term is rude--and mostly any term that isn't medical is somewhat rude--well, you have answered your own interrogative statement, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:28 PM

From what I understand it's not nearly so harsh a term in the UK, and is losing the sexual connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:13 PM

Well, I don't, Don T. I don't like Palin but that is not an appropriate term to use, imo. Unless it is true that the UK and the US use the term quite differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:12 PM

Where this all is going to hit the fan is when Palin has to explain to the tea Partiers that she thinks their Social Security needs to be cut...

That's the one I'm waiting for...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:57 PM

""May I ask that we use 'twit' when that is what is appropriate.""

Though I do tend to agree with your desire for more moderate language in general, it was Sarah Palin and her ilk, to whom he referred Ebbie.

I think he was using the precisely correct and appropriate word.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM

Bee Dub: "1) if you don't contribute, you don't benefit and 2) once you opt out, you can never opt back in. Check that box and you're no longer part of the social welfare system. You'll pay less taxes, but you'll receive no benefits. You'll never be eligible for Social Security, Medicare, EBT (Food Stamps), unemployment assistance, educational assistance or any other sort of government help. If you lose your job, you starve. If you can't afford to send Junior to college, forget about a Pell Grant or guaranteed student loan. If you get sick and are unable to pay for care, you die.

Even faced with the possibility of such dire potential consequences, a large number of people would still choose to opt out. Why? Because they're greedy and are willing to take short-term gains over long-term security."

There is room for some ambiguity there, Bee D El. I don't know if it is still the case but the Amish got permission years ago to opt out of Social Security on the basis of taking care of their own and not benefiting from the larger pot.

I was going to respond to Melissa's rhetorical question but she and Amos wrapped it up beautifully. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM

Just as a thought experiment...

Now there's your problem. The bitching a$$holes you reference DON'T think and CAN'T think.

Hence the TeaBagger Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM

I think this thread is suffering from Mudcat social disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM

Far be it from me to improve your vocabulary in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Melissa
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:03 PM

Of course not, Amos.
That would be silly!

My vocabulary suffers from knowing so few manpart words to use for spicing up a dreary conversation..I naturally feel cheated and moderately inarticulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:57 PM

It's like the idjit who wouldn't pay the $75 to belong to the fire district and then pissed and moaned when they let his house burn down. [i]That's what he said he wanted![/i] It's just that he didn't think it would happen to him, so it didn't matter. F***wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:57 PM

Why, Me;issa!! Are you supposing or insinuating that men would resort to such barbaric crudities merely to intimidate or demean the women folk? Perish the thought!! Why ever would they do such a thing? It's not as if they needed to dominate women is it? Surely there's no historic precedent to support THAT thesis!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:56 PM

BWL - not sure it's just greed -- it's like teenage males who think they're immortal and so they drive like idiots. People think "it'll never happen to me". And when it does they get angry and blame anybody and form groups like the Tea Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Melissa
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:53 PM

Sometimes I wonder if it's entirely coincidental that so many rude terms for female body parts are used as dismissive insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:02 PM

Not to probe too deeply into matters of deep linguistic analysis (I could do something really raunchy with that, but I will refrain), I believe the word "twat," the way it is used by our British confreres, means essentially what we Yanks refer to as a "twit."

I remember seeing actor Sir Lawrence Olivier in a television interview in which, in a humorously self-deprecating moment, referring to himself as a "silly twat." I wondered at the time about how American viewers might interpret that.

End of footnote. Now, back to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:49 PM

'Twats'- also a term of abuse.
"Yes, they let a bloody twat like 'im off." Manning, Middle Parts of Fortune, 1929. Several other quotes, Oxford English Dictionary.
Yes, Ebbie, a twat can have a twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 01:44 PM

Basically, people want to have their cake and eat it too. The same people who bitch the loudest about entitlements are the ones who will probably bitch the most about how meager those entitlements are when it comes their turn to receive them.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine that the tax code was structured so that taxpayers could opt out of contributing to social programs. Just check a box on your tax form and your taxes are reduced by whatever percentage would go toward funding such programs. There are just two catches: 1) if you don't contribute, you don't benefit and 2) once you opt out, you can never opt back in. Check that box and you're no longer part of the social welfare system. You'll pay less taxes, but you'll receive no benefits. You'll never be eligible for Social Security, Medicare, EBT (Food Stamps), unemployment assistance, educational assistance or any other sort of government help. If you lose your job, you starve. If you can't afford to send Junior to college, forget about a Pell Grant or guaranteed student loan. If you get sick and are unable to pay for care, you die.

Even faced with the possibility of such dire potential consequences, a large number of people would still choose to opt out. Why? Because they're greedy and are willing to take short-term gains over long-term security.

Then, as time elapsed, many of those people would discover that opting out was a big mistake. They'd discover that the government was serious about the "no contribution, no benefit" deal. The amount of self-induced suffering that would ensue would be so great that people would be rioting in the streets demanding that the opt-out provision be done away with.

Within a generation, we'd be back to mandatory participation, only people would probably bitch about it a whole lot less. For a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM

Traditionally there is a difference between twat and twit. A twit is considered an unthinking, brainless, ditzy ignoramus. A twat, on the other hand, among the coarse intelligentsia is a part of a human female's anatomy, comparable to a prick. May I ask that we use 'twit' when that is what is appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:22 PM

Grizzlies, mama or otherwise, need protection from the Federal Government to keep them from extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:09 PM

heh heh heh the soul domain, that's funny...

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:59 PM

Mama bears just look out for themselves.
There is no we the bears who band together for the common good.

But we must hold on to ours... despite the contract killers who have a contract on our social contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

Mama Grizzlies !, give me a break. THis mental picture may empower some mothers around the country but the metaphor is a lie.
Mama Grizzles do not band together in packs, herds or armies.
If one mana grizzley gets th slightest bit crowded by another mama Grizzley there is bloody fight.

Beck's prop of a pie trying to prove just because a riuch guy gets nearly the whole pie that doesn;t mean you get less...you should just go out and make our won pie. Bull Shit the graph of the pie stands for everything that exists. Sorry no hypothetical over pie is the sky exists folks.

Subject: BS: Who wants to Kill The Social Contract &Y
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM

The Social COntract is an American democratic pholosophy of we the people binding together for the common good and our common defense.

The contract used to be the soul domain of the King. The King decided who got what and who would lose it.
Then in the Indeustrial revolution and Gilded Age the new kings were the wealthy aristocrats, monopolies and political machines.

Today we are looking at the tail end of a 80 to 100 year struggle to have the social contract to fairly pay and care for our citizens.
A livable wage and affordable health care is what has been on the table.



Opponents of the social contract are naturally those who feel they stand to lose something by have the people get any justice and legally mandated entitlements. Yep I used the very words that are being demonized by the likes of Beck and Palin. Social Justice, Entitlements, Unemployment Insurance, Assistence etc.

IF the killers of the social contract can get get people to believe that being respondsible for one self is the real issue, they are halfway to repealing any assistence for the masses. This would give large sums of the AMerican pie to big owners, big banks, big corporations and big liars. THey wanted to give Social Security to Wall street for decades now.


The push for privatization of America can only be complete if the people are fully owned by owners without any hope of independent assistence from the goverment. Republicans are just the big mouth for corporate snake oil



There are talking heads and the are talking twats. Among the twats is Sarah Palin who is big on self repondsibility while wanting subsidies for big oil.
Palin is clearly against the social contract

The rest of the right wing think tank machine is about isolating Obama as the alien enemy. Now with a Republican prosecutor ISSA in power watch for the worst to happen. The attacks will so that a 5th grader will get mad


I for one want to keep and refine the social contract. We used to be able to afford it. After the biggest theft of the Treasury in history there will be those who will say we can never afford it again.

We afforded a military 10 bigger than all military "spending" combined. Certainly spending does not equate with bigger or better.
The coming cuts should be deep enough to make old man McCain cry himself to sleep.

The social contract rings loud and clear in our Declartion of Independence and our Constitution. Just because the SUpreme Court says we the people means Corporations, who are you going to believe, them our you own eyes.