PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republ...

PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party

There are 2196 comments on the Washington Times story from Oct 12, 2013, titled PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party. In it, Washington Times reports that:

The Republican Party saved the Union and abolished slavery. The Republican Party stood against Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and against Jim Crow laws in the 50's.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#1693 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
My only choice is voting for the liberal Dems or voting for the religious nutjob GOPasaurs.
The Dems are currently the lesser of 2 evils.
Yes, it's your chouce to be a HYP-O-CRITE.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#1694 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I'm a conservative libertarian who votes for the Dems because the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, religious nutjob Teabaggers in control of the Republican party.
But continue to spin your lies if that helps you sleep at night.
I didn't lie about anything. You're a teabagger voting with the Dems. HYP-O-CRITE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1695 Nov 5, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>If they weren't anti-gay, you'd have teabag tatoos all over your HYP-O-CRITICAL body.
No, as I've said numerous times, I oppose them because they're anti-gay, racist, sexist, religious fanatical nutjobs.

But if you want to make it all about the gay, feel free to continue making yourself look like a moron.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#1696 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't deposited anything with them; you & your employer paid taxes to give to current retirees.
When you turn 62, you'll be eligible to apply for social security benefits which will be paid for by CURRENT workers & employers.
That's how the Ponzi scheme works.
There is NO right to receive social security benefits. The program can be eliminated by Congress at any time, including for CURRENT recipients.
you should have told me that in 1965, when I started contributing.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#1697 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, I don't need my pension; neither does my husband.
Why should I give back that which I've earned?
Ah, typical liberal logic- give back what you've earned and let the govt take care of you from cradle to grave.
so you earned your pension, by working for uncle sugar for 20 years, but I have not earned my SS after contributing to it for 48 years?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#1698 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, as I've said numerous times, I oppose them because they're anti-gay, racist, sexist, religious fanatical nutjobs.
But if you want to make it all about the gay, feel free to continue making yourself look like a moron.
It's not about the gay from my point. It's about the gay from yours. HYP-O-CRITE. If the Repubs and bagger nuts weren't anti-gay, you'd vote with them. It's the only reason. HYP-O-CRITE. And you are the self centered hypocritical moron. There is no such thing as a Conservative Libertarian Democrat. Oh, my mistake. There is only one, YOU. HYP-O-CRITE.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#1699 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I'm a conservative libertarian who votes for the Dems because the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, religious nutjob Teabaggers in control of the Republican party.
But continue to spin your lies if that helps you sleep at night.
Another political crossdresser.
.
I suppose the next thing you'll say is you're only a little bit gay.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#1700 Nov 5, 2013
Social Security was never intended to be a primary funding vehicle of retirees, but only a supplement to their earned pension incomes from years and decades of employment.

Your retirement income should consist of your defined benefit pension, a supplemental 401K annuity and Social Security after age 65
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
The sheeple are going to be absolutely shocked when they find out they won't be able to live off social security.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#1701 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't deposited anything with them; you & your employer paid taxes to give to current retirees.
When you turn 62, you'll be eligible to apply for social security benefits which will be paid for by CURRENT workers & employers.
That's how the Ponzi scheme works.
There is NO right to receive social security benefits. The program can be eliminated by Congress at any time, including for CURRENT recipients.
?? Wait a minute. You seem to have forgotten Reagan. When it became obvious that the baby boomers would need more money in the SS accounts, Reagan doubled the taxes on SS so the money would be there. When asked, Reagan said, the baby boomers are going to have to pay for their own retirement. The people coming behind them won't be able to afford it. So I have been paying double SS taxes since about 1981 and now you say, I didn't pay my share? No, the reason there are trillions in the accounts is because it was paid in. The wealthy just want to get their hands on our money, and they pay people to tell us fabrications like you just did.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#1702 Nov 5, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
so you earned your pension, by working for uncle sugar for 20 years, but I have not earned my SS after contributing to it for 48 years?
?? So, if you want some of your money back, why would you support the GOP who are intent on taking your money for themselves?

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#1703 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I believe in taking care of myself, I require very little from the federal, state, or even local govt.
God for you little man, good for you.

Unfortunately, the nation doesn't revolve around you. There are many others who require assistance, convenience and happiness afforded by taxpayer funding.
I realize those of you who need to be taken care of by the govt from cradle to grave simply can't comprehend how that could possibly be.
Your ability to hyperbole is entertaining.

What exactly have you got against those who are born with genetic diseases? Why do you seek to refuse them cradle to the grave help?

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#1704 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Fleming v Nestor:
"no constitutional right to receive social security benefits"
Social security isn't earned; it's just another taxpayer funded govt give away program.
Not so fast...first of all it is Flemming v Nestor. Did you actually read the case?

Ephram Nestor was a Communist collaborator. The U.S. was involved in the Cold War and deported those who came to the nation only to subvert it. Mr. Nestor was one such man.

Unfortunately for you, there is a clause in the Social Security Act that allows for the forfeiture of payments when convicted. Section 202(n) provides for the termination of Social Security payments when an alien is deported for being a member of the Communist Party.

He lost based upon that law.

I'm done playing with you and your mindless beliefs. Here is what the Social Security Administration says:

Earned Income is wages, net earnings from self–employment, certain royalties and honoraria, and sheltered workshop payments.

Unearned Income is all income that is not earned, such as Social Security benefits, pensions, State disability payments, unemployment benefits, interest income, and cash from friends and relatives.

In–Kind Income is food or shelter that you get for free or less than its fair market value.

Deemed Income is the part of the income of your spouse with whom you live, your parent(s) with whom you live, or your sponsor (if you are an alien), which we use to compute your SSI benefit amount.

Hmmmmmm? If they call it earned income how can it be considered any different by a fear mongering hypocrite?

ROTFLMAO!
Our daughter will be able to take care of herself without relying on the govt to care for all her needs from cradle to grave.
I realize that's anathema to liberals.
Sure she will. You depend on Uncle Sam, so will she.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#1705 Nov 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so I'll add the stipulation that the govt can refuse anyone military service because participation isn't mandatory for basic citizenship.
Sorry, but you have already been proven to be a liar who possesses no sense of logic and foresight.
Okay, so I'll add that Christians can be refused military service as well, because we certainly don't want any of those "radicals & zealots" in the military either.
Happy now?
Your inability to read is funny. I have no problem with Islam. In fact, I think it is a pretty decent faith, even though I find all organized religions to be scams. I specifically cited that zealots and extremists are the issue. Yes, even Christians can be included in that group. That is why I ridiculed your contention that EVERYONE should be required to serve in our military.

Stooge.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#1706 Nov 5, 2013
Being one of those born with a genetic disease (Scioliosis) I received a spinal fusion operation in 1960 with my family paid for. Cash! No help from Uncle Sap. But It was only $2000. My Dad's two grand made the Dr, very happy then. How much would it do today? Let's bring the cost down! Insurance is just welfare for the Drs and medical industry!
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
God for you little man, good for you.
Unfortunately, the nation doesn't revolve around you. There are many others who require assistance, convenience and happiness afforded by taxpayer funding.
<quoted text>
Your ability to hyperbole is entertaining.
What exactly have you got against those who are born with genetic diseases? Why do you seek to refuse them cradle to the grave help?

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#1707 Nov 5, 2013
Your story can be countered by thousands of others that suggest that all citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even those born with maladies.

If you grant a birthright to humans in America, you have to accept the attendant responsibilities. For example, a team member had a son who was born with leukemia. Yes, straight from the womb. Doctors told my friend that his son would never see three years of age. That was 24 years ago. Bill graduated from college a couple years ago. He cannot find work nor insurance because of his preexisting condition. Should he live his entire life without that ability?

Take your time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1708 Nov 5, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
you should have told me that in 1965, when I started contributing.
You didn't contribute; you were taxed just like everyone else.

Only an idiot wouldn't have known that social security isn't an earned right and that Congress can eliminate it completely at any time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1709 Nov 5, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
so you earned your pension, by working for uncle sugar for 20 years, but I have not earned my SS after contributing to it for 48 years?
Correct.

There is NO contractual right to collect social security.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1710 Nov 5, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>It's not about the gay from my point. It's about the gay from yours. HYP-O-CRITE. If the Repubs and bagger nuts weren't anti-gay, you'd vote with them. It's the only reason. HYP-O-CRITE. And you are the self centered hypocritical moron. There is no such thing as a Conservative Libertarian Democrat. Oh, my mistake. There is only one, YOU. HYP-O-CRITE.
Believe whatever you want.

It doesn't make you correct.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1711 Nov 5, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Another political crossdresser.
.
I suppose the next thing you'll say is you're only a little bit gay.
I know you partisan hacks just HATE it when people don't fit into your preconceived boxes.

You'll just have to learn to deal with it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1712 Nov 5, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Social Security was never intended to be a primary funding vehicle of retirees, but only a supplement to their earned pension incomes from years and decades of employment.
Your retirement income should consist of your defined benefit pension, a supplemental 401K annuity and Social Security after age 65
<quoted text>
I agree.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans have no defined pension and no significant 401k investments.

That means more people will be relying almost solely on social security in the future for their retirement.

They're going to be in for a BIG surprise.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 min Eagle 12 20,628
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Realtime 1,406,395
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min Hill4me 219,825
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 9 min Le Jimbo 5,764
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min Cheech the Conser... 391,805
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 12 min Terra Firma 15,052
News Turkey issues warrants for 42 journalists amid ... 19 min progressive 10
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 20 min Injudgement 233,705
News Commentary: Hillary's speech was not good 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 28
More from around the web