- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No. What was said, was said, and therefore objective. Interpreted. Let's try that:
"Sir, we have reason to doubt his story. He's unrelaiable."
Give me different interpretations.
Exactly. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to regulate inactivity. Congress doesn't have the power to fine us for not doing something.
If I fall down. Is that fact, that I fell, objective or subjective?
I asked earlier about this. With Social Security, we have to pay in to a system that benefits us at some point, similar to the way national health insurance would operate.
And if and when you reach 65 (happens quicker than you think), you'll be glad you were forced to join. I sure was and still am.
ricksfolly
And if and when you reach 65 (happens quicker than you think), you'll be glad you were forced to join. I sure was and still am.
ricksfolly
And if you die at 61 the government keeps it
Doubt doesn't mean that it's not true. So the way someone takes that statement is very subjective.
Be serious. The point is you can't assume it's true. You can't act like it is true, ignoring doubt, and be called honest.
So you want to debate what is and is not honest vs what is and is not subjective. You're interpretation of what is or is not honest is in and of itself, subjective. :lol:
More spends (sic) on someone else.
No there is not.To a degree. But, is their no objective standard of honesty?
It's a half truth. (Which btw, is a nice faux pas because that's usually what you do).If I tell half a truth, is that always honest?
We're not discussing absolutely, we're discussing subjectivity, or at least you were attempting to do so. Mostly honest, mostly, partly, partially... all still subjective.Always dishoenst? Mostly honest? Mostly dishonest?
Your thinking that is subjective. :shrug:You seem to want to live in a world in which you can bend things to fit your position. I think we can be more objective than that.
a worker pays into social security to the tune of 5 to 10,000 per year for 40 years, dies a little too soon, his or her family is totally ripped off their lifetime's investment
and the thoughtful reaction is:
unbelievable
Ripped off? Hardly.
Many live longer and get more than they paid in.
a person making 70,000 a year would have to receive the avg soc sec payout of $1076 a month for more than 40 years to break even with THE PRINCIPAL only he or she has been forced to pay into the system
get real
so what? social security isn't a personal savings account. people were never promised they would receive what they paid in.
More spends on someone else.
Shows the corruption of the government when they run anything. The government spent our money they should have to pay for that extortion
But originally, citizens were taxed one percent of their income, too.
so what? social security isn't a personal savings account. people were never promised they would receive what they paid in.
It's spent on us. Our money, on us. Where do you get extortin from that? :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?