Text 9516, 155 rader
Skriven 2005-03-02 12:39:47 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
     Kommentar till en text av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: If It Ain't Broke...
============================
02 Mar 05 10:52, LEE LOFASO wrote to JOHN HULL:

 LL> Hello John,

 LL> "We have tried to frame a law that will give some measure of 
 LL> protection
 LL> to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job 
 LL> and
 LL> against poverty-ridden old age." - FDR

 LL> "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or 
 LL> collectively
 LL> an easy life - nor was it ever intended so to do." - FDR, on the 
 LL> 3rd
 LL> anniversary of singing the social security legislation

 LL> "None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance 
 LL> or in
 LL> insurance will epell anything approaching abudndance.  But they 
 LL> will
 LL> furnish that minimum necessity to keep a foothold; and that is the 
 LL> kind
 LL> of protection Americans want." - FDR

 LL> "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the 
 LL> abundance of
 LL> those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who 
 LL> have
 LL> little." - FDR

 LL> That is the crux of the New Deal.  Everything else is nothing more
 LL> than the very, very old deal.

 LL> In matters concerning social security, FDR's target was the rate 
 LL> of poverty, not rate of return.  That is made clear in FDR's speech 
 LL> to the Congress on January 17, 1935, as well as in subsequent speeches 
 LL> and statements.

Which is simply a lie, since somebody posted some stuff yesterday that backed
up what *I* said.  No doubt you ignored it.

 >>JH>Perhaps you don't know that FDR intended to implement the same
 >>JH>sort of savings accounts that Bush is talking about.

 >>LL>Well, John, to be perfectly honest, I didn't know that.
 >>LL>So please fill me in.  IOW - Put up or shut up.

 >>LL>BTW, just because Britt Hume said so does not make it so.
 >>LL>And just because Newt Gingrich said so does not make it so.
 >>LL>And just because John Hull said so does not make it so.

 >>LL>Please show cites, where FDR said what you claim.  If you can.

 >>LL>Gosh.  I love this "put up or shut up" rule.  :)

 >>JH>Tell you what, Lee.  When you post cites for some of the truly
 >>JH>outrageous stuff you've posted, I'll post cites for that.

 >>LL>I have opinions on just about everything.  Most, if not all, of my
 >>LL>opinions are based on fact.  What "truly outrageous stuff" you are
 >>LL>referring to I have no idea, since you failed to specify.
 >>LL>However, it seems you have no basis in fact on which to base your
 >>LL>wild opinion that FDR proposed a social security system similar to
 >>LL>Bush's proposal. That why I have invoked the "put up or shut up"
 >>LL>rule.

 >>JH>You must think we're a bunch of rubes in here.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up, John.  Either you can qualify your above
 >>LL>statement, or you can't.  It's that simple.

 >>JH>You've been caught with your pants down so many times I can't even
 >>JH>hazard a guess.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up, John.  You made the statement saying "FDR
 >>LL>intended to implement the same sort of savings accounts that Bush 
 >>LL>is talking about." Qualify your statement.  If you can.

 >>JH>You've admitted in the past to posting shit that isn't true.

 >>LL>I have posted many opinions, on various topics.  Whether you and
 >>LL>others agree or disagree with those opinions is not my concern.

 >>JH>Don't play dumb ass games with me on posting cites.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up, John.

 >>JH>I've got the book in my hand that covers what I said.

 >>LL>Then put up or shut up.  Qualify your statement.  If you can.

 >>JH>I wouldn't have written anything if it wasn't verifiable.

 >>LL>Then put up or shut up.  Qualify your statement.  If you can.

 >>JH>You ought to know by now that I do not lie, and I wouldn't post
 >>JH>something unless it was verifiable.

 >>LL>Then put up or shut up.

 >>JH>Btw, this is not the first time I've posted about it.

 >>LL>Oh, my.  In that case, that makes a second put up or shut up.  :)

 >>JH>I guess you missed it the first time, eh?

 >>LL>Then put up or shut up.  Failure to do so would be your admission
 >>LL>of being a bona fide liar.

 >>JH>The only thing I'll admit is that you're nothing but a joke.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up.  Qualify your statement concerning FDR.
 >>LL>You can do it.  If you try.  Or maybe you can't.  In which case
 >>LL>I can easily understand your embarrassment.

 >>JH>You're a bona fide jerk and I don't owe you anything, and neither
 >>JH>does anybody else here.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up.  Qualify your statement.  If you can.

 >>JH>You don't have enough credibility for me to waste my time giving
 >>JH>cites for anything.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up, John.  Qualify your statement.  If you can.

 >>JH>You are irrelevant.

 >>LL>Put up or shut up, John.  Qualify your statement concerning FDR.
 >>LL>If you can.

 JH>>Not to you, asshole.  By the way, your record is stuck.

 LL> IOW, you have nothing to base your wild comment on concerning FDR.
 LL> That's no surprise, given FDR's real vision of social security, as
 LL> noted in his message to Congress on social security, dated January
 LL> 17, 1935.  Please feel free to also read FDR's other speeches and
 LL> writings.  He was truly an amazing man, who understood the needs
 LL> and wants of the American people.

FDR is in my family tree, on my mother's side.  He was an arrogant, elitist,
power hungry snob who was insanely jealous of his cousin, and former president,
Teddy - the epitome of the East Coast ultra liberal establishment. Had WWII not
intervened, his policies very likely would have ruined this country beyond
redemption, and there is tons of documentation to prove that if you aren't
blinded by slavish devotion to the Democrat Party.

I don't expect you to have the common sense to acknowledge that, however.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)