Jack's own "State of Delusion"  

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Geez, I can't even open my hometown newspaper without some commie shitbag spewing a bunch of lies and crap in the editorials. Folks, I know my rants are better when I go general instead of point-by point, and maybe I should have left this one to The Rott, but it just pisses me off so ...

So this moron named Jack puts it in writing this week, starting off with name-calling and referring to some "State of Delusion" speech ... I thought Slick Willie left office four years ago (a little name-calling of my own there).

Certainly, there is a problem with the long term funding of Social Security.

Unfortunately, the Bush plan to allow personal accounts would subtract rather than add to the government funds available to pay benefits.

OK, Mr. Jackoff, what exactly is your "solution", since you haven't even suggested one here?

Oh, and you did get one thing right, sir. The President's plan would ultimately subtract from government funds available to pay benefits. THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE POINT, DUMBASS! There would ultimately be no need for government funds because the personal accounts would cover people's expenses. In fact, there would be more money in the accounts than any Socialist Security check could cover. All that would have to happen is to collect enough for those who have not had the opportunity to save in this fashion because of the IRS picking their pockets every April 15th. People wouldn't NEED the nanny state to pay their way. Personal independence - Go figure. That's what America is all about!

Oh, and before you start spewing your bullshit about markets going down, take a look at any credible stock analysis of the last 100 years and you will see that the markets have always gone UP for the long term, even during the depression. In fact, if every parent could somehow stash $5000.00 in a tax shelter that averages only 10% a year (VERY low-risk) for each child at birth, that child would have somewhere between two and two and a half MILLION dollars in the account (still earning interest) by the time he or she turned 65. The interest on that alone would pay more than Socialist Security. Imagine that!

Bush pretends to support freedom and to be a follower of Jesus.

However, he encourages intolerance and laws penalizing those who chose life style different that his own.

President Bush supports freedom ... see above demonstration of how people become more free AND more prosperous when Socialist Security is ultimately dismantled. Freedom is not defined as the government granting everyone's every wish, and neither were the teachings of Jesus. President Bush encourages no intolerance in anything he supports. Defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman (assuming that is what you are talking about) is a basic Biblical teaching, not a penalty, fully consistent with the teachings of Jesus. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for you or someone you love, but it is the truth.

Do you want to talk about intolerance?? How about the "Fairness Doctrine", a government edict that placed illegal limits on free speech. Your left-wing asswipes had their fingerprints all over that one. Of course, there was no need for a "Fairness Doctrine" when there were no conservative viewpoints in the media. Rush Limbaugh makes his way onto the airwaves, and all of a sudden, the government tries to regulate what is presented on his program. Free speech on college campuses is being suppressed routinely when conservative students speak up. Can you defend these crimes?

How about the continuing intolerance of gun owners and gun ownership? Law after law after law has been passed in an attempt to suppress the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Every one of these laws is both unconstitutional and illegal.

I can't name very many people who consider themselves "pro-choice" who are willing to tolerate the viewpoint that in choosing to commit to an act of sexual activity, a woman has consented to any resulting pregnancy, and that the life of the baby should be protected under the fifth amendment. I'm not talking about nutcases who commit crimes to defend the children, I'm talking about peaceful demonstrators. Those who would ask simply to offer a young mother another option. Is there any crime in allowing a decision to be made with all of the pertinent information presented? Why isn't there a "Fairness Doctrine" in this case? Hmmm? Don't you think a young mother considering an abortion should have both sides of the issue presented by someone willing to provide a pursuasive argument to its validity? It doesn't happen, and you shold know, since there is an abortion clinic within five miles of your home, JACK.

He talks about American values, but fails to understand the Constitution as it now exists and the separation of church and state, are basic cornerstones of our national heritage.

The Constitution as it now exists is not significantly different from the Constitution that existed 200 years ago. I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to the Constitution "as it now exists", but I can tell you that a separation of church and state has never been a "basic cornerstone of our national heritage", especially as it is being attempted today. Since you give no examples of how he is allegedly doing this, and I can make no assumptions because I think you have lost your mind (or never had one to begin with), I cannot reasonably comment further on the matter. Oh, and by the way, where does the Constitution say that the Federal Government can take money from people and redistribute it to others as it does with ... Socialist Security?

He continues to pretend he can balance the budget by cutting taxes while he continues to increase government spending.

You are wrong again. Ask any economist. However, I must point out that most government spending is to be frozen at current levels (a practice Bill Clinton would have called cuts in spending). The only place there exists any significant increase is in military spending, which happens to be a Constitutionally mandated expenditure. Sucks to be you, doesn't it Jack?

Now here's where you REALLY pissed me off, JACK:

Perhaps worst of all, he denies there is any need for a plan, even a flexible plan to withdraw from Iraq.

How many additional hundreds or thousands of young American lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars is he willing to throw away on a venture that is creating terrorists?

Bin Laden wants to bankrupt America.

If left unchecked, Bush seems willing and likely to bankrupt us on his own.

There is NO need for any new plan to withdraw from Iraq. The existing one will suffice just fine. We will stay until we are no longer needed there and the Iraqis can handle their own affairs. It is the same strategy that was used in Afghanistan (and Europe back in the 1940's). Success in war is not determined by the plan, but by the outcome. Hitler was destroyed in WWII. That was a successful war. Afghans enjoy true self-determination without terrorists being sponsored by the state. That was a successful battle. Saddam Hussein is in custody, Uday and Qsay are dead, and the Iraqis have begun to hold elections (and are QUITE GRATEFUL to the US for that). Despite the existence of foreign terrorists still in Iraq, that battle, though not yet over, has been a resounding success.

I would like you to cite just ONE example of a terrorist that was created by the War on Terror. Name ONE. You cannot do it. Each and every terrorist has been created by a philosophy of freedom-hating religious zealots who are willing to torture and kill innocent civilians in trying to achieve their goals. You cannot possibly tell me that anything President Bush has done could even come close to what paying large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers (as Saddam did) may have done to create terrorists.

And I take issue with your assertion that the war is tantamount to "throwing away" hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds or thousands of young American lives. First of all, those hundreds of billions of dollars have so far kept a major terrorist attack from happening here on US soil for three years now, a feat the Clinton Administration could not and did not accomplish. Money spent protecting American lives (such as yours and mine and especially my children's) is money well spent. Make no mistake about it. Bin Laden isn't trying to bankrupt America, he is trying to DESTROY it.

JACK, you should be ashamed of yourself when you talk about throwing away young American lives, as if these men and women have somehow been handled like pieces of trash. Talk to soldiers who have returned and you will know that the job they are doing, though very risky and dangerous, is right and just. You should be ashamed of yourself in asserting that our own townsman killed in Iraq late last year has died in vain, as he was proud to do the work he did. Thanks to him and others like him, you will continue to enjoy the right to spew your bullshit at will. If you don't want to honor the heroes of this war, including the President, then I have two words for you JACK...