It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by beezzer
 


So what if they do? Are you one of those super-rich bastards that's been screwing people out of their money all these years?

Or are you just another Palin Programmed Shill?


Its nice to know that you place people within these two groups..........because you either have to be a programmed shill.........

Or you have to be a rich person that screws people..........because everyone knows all rich people screw everyone......


Are you aware of your own ignorance are you in such blissful denial that you are hopelessly lost?

Troll




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Those under 40 should be able to invest half of their S.S. money into Thrift Savings Account type funds that they can start to draw on at age 65 while the retirement age is raise for those 40 and under. Congress invests in these plans. Federal employees invest in these plans.

The reason they don't want use to invest in these plans is because S.S. is a Pyramid scheme and they want to waste and spend the money.


Of course, till the central bank that these "Theft Savings Accounts" are held in, decides that they are going to default on all of those savings accounts and just take the money themselves. Where exactly do you think they proposed these "Theft Savings Accounts" be held? Obviously couldn't hold them in a private bank which can go under, there's no real security in that right? Obviously the Federal Reserve Bank would be the only people "trustworthy" enough to keep and manage these accounts, probably with lots of hefty fees attached when you are able to withdraw the money, half would probably seem fair.

So, instead of social security, now all the money goes into a central bank and people might end up getting a quarter of their money in return if anything at all.

Great plan.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Again, you don't know what your talking about. Members of Congress, Federal Employees and people in the Military invest in these accounts.

These accounts will be held in private institutions and they will be insured by the Government. This way the money can grow instead of being spent by crooks in Washington. Also, people can pass that money along to a grandson for College or a Daughter to help with her business if they die before they can began to see benefits. This way you have control over these accounts versus Government hoping a certain percentage of people die before they see any benefits.

Here's some of the funds in the Thrift Savings Account.


* G Fund[5] - Government Securities fund. These are unique government securities not available to the general public and are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. The G Fund was the initial fund established by the TSP when it began operations on April 1, 1987.
* F Fund[6] - Fixed Income Index fund. Invested in BlackRock's U.S. Debt Index Fund. Tracks the Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index. The F Fund was opened to Federal employees in January 1988 but was limited to only a portion of contributions; beginning January 1991 all restrictions on F Fund contributions were lifted.
* C fund[7] - Common Stock Index fund. Invested in BlackRock's Equity Index Fund. Replicates the total return version[8] of the S&P 500 index. The C Fund also opened to employees in January 1988 and was subject to the same restrictions as the F Fund until January 1991.
* S Fund[9] - Small Capitalization Stock Index fund. Invested in BlackRock's Extended Market Index Fund, which tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Completion TSM index. The S Fund opened to employees in May 2001.
* I Fund[10] - International Stock Index fund. Invested in BlackRock's EAFE Index Fund. Replicates the net version[8] of the MSCI EAFE index. The I Fund opened to employees in May 2001.


en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not talking about people treating the funds like a Day Trader. That's just silly.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Progressives my ass! What a pack of lies and fear mongering. Don't you people ever get tired of making # up or is it just that you have to keep doing it in order to "Keep Fear Alive," as Stephen Colbert put it.

In actuality, the "End of Life Planning" portion of the health care reform was put in the bill by a republican, namely Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana along with democratic co-sponsors and was based on a piece of stand alone legislation, namely H.R. 1898.

Isn't there a web site somewhere that you could go to propagate that crap other than here on ATS?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You probably would have to add the legal to that.


[size=-4]Read and invest carefully, all investments involve risk, especially when the people managing the funds decide to take the money from the fund to go on an extended European vacation in a non extradition country never to be seen again. Please be aware of fees, charges, expenses and every other bull (snip) thing we can tack onto your account for when you are old enough to start withdrawing the funds (like we will still be there lol) All investment carries risk, fortunately for you, this has no risk at all, you are guaranteed to lose most of your money to fees and charges and everything else that we can tack onto it before we just get sick of waiting and embezzle the rest of what you have left to live on and move to Switzerland.

edit on 12/27/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Nothing to fear here: "I've got a "shovel ready grandma!"
Do you?

Progressives /conservatives they''ve both got it in; for us all...

edit on 27-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If there is any truth to the matter one only has to go inside a public (and some private) nursing homes to see whats going on in there.....it aint a pretty sight!!!! Our elderly are abused and treated worse than dogs. Who's fault is that? The system!!!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
No. I don't believe that anyone (including progressives) want to kill anyone.

The problem is that their agenda for power and money just doesn't leave much room for these people to survive.

Do they WANT to kill them....no.

Do they care if they die........no.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Survival of the Fittest

If what you are saying regarding the progressive movement is true, then the movement's ideology revolves around the "survival of the fittest" (SOTF).

If it does revolve around SOTF then it is logical to remove the weak from the equation.

One problem though, that was the past, the weak is as useful to the state as the strong in current times.

Now we have invented technology which allows fully paralysed patients to control objects using their brain signals.

It seems the progressive movement is not progressive, they are thinking backwards, rather than forward.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Your entire post is wrong and invalid. Fact.

I honestly blame Palin for starting up the Death Panel nonsense. Now all the conservatives are going ape sh*t trying to bash Health Care. Turn off your television and get real information.





posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


There is no other way to express my feelings on this thread than to say that the premise is stoopid beyond belief. Is that what the American right honestly believes? Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick.

That is retarded.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Is that what the American right honestly believes? Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick.


That is exactly what the American right honestly believes. That's all they hear from their news sources.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
As a progressive I must disagree with your thinking on this. We progressives want to kill, period. We enjoy killing for its own sake, but have no particular animus toward the elderly and the sick. Think about it. They are simply easier to kill. If we targeted the healthy and the young, we'd certainly kill fewer of them, and may even get into harm's way ourselves.
It's simple, really, you kill those easiest to kill. If you're a killer, which the OP has correctly labeled progressives, such as myself.



I kid.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by whatukno
 


Of course the goal is to end Social Security and Medicare for future generations because of the increase in life expectancy. You will only need these programs for the poorest among us.


yeah. Because only poor people get cancer or suffer from old age. Rich people just have their consciousnesses transferred to robots once they hit 60. Why don't you actually talk to someone who gets social security and medicare and ask how many of their ailments were caused by being poor as opposed to elderly or sick. Common sense seems to be a foreign concept to neocons.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problem is the Progressives see the State as Almighty and they can control every aspect of your life through heavy regulation.


No I think the problem is that no matter how many times a progressive tells you what they really think, you dismiss it for what Rush told you progressives think.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
As a progressive I must disagree with your thinking on this. We progressives want to kill, period. We enjoy killing for its own sake, but have no particular animus toward the elderly and the sick. Think about it. They are simply easier to kill. If we targeted the healthy and the young, we'd certainly kill fewer of them, and may even get into harm's way ourselves.
It's simple, really, you kill those easiest to kill. If you're a killer, which the OP has correctly labeled progressives, such as myself.
I kid.


Close. I actually kill because I drink blood to rejuvenate myself. However, only the blood of the most inbred, ignorant neocon is effective. Because the blood hasn't been pumped in and out of a brain, it's more pure. I select my victims by attending Sarah Palin book signing events. I just grab the first 5 people in line.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
LOL.

Put down that Glenn Beck anti-psychotic meds -- they've got to have side effects...

... seriously? My wife has a "pre condition" -- cancer. So as lame as the "Left" is on capital hill, at least not being denied coverage will save her life and keep us out of the poor house.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
There is obviously an issue with they way the OP has grouped together "the elderly and the sick". Firstly, there is a big difference between being temporarily ill, having a clinical illness, being terminally ill, and being of old age. To just lump those all together is nonsensical. Secondly, this is clearly a character assassination attempt against those who identify themselves as Progressives. The thread title also works on a subliminal level by implanting the idea that what "Progressives" believe is actually counter-productive towards Progression.

Thirdly, this will ultimately turn into a debate about Euthanasia. Does somebody that is unhappy with their existence have the right to terminate their own life in a humane and convenient manner? Yes I believe they do. There of course need to be regulations in place to prevent people who stand to gain financially from somebody else's death.

For those that don't support legalised Euthanasia, perhaps you should consider the following: does your right to believe nobody should take their own lives take priority over somebody's right to be free from the pain and suffering caused by a terminal illness that has drastically reduced the quality of their lives?

edit on 28/12/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by joechip
As a progressive I must disagree with your thinking on this. We progressives want to kill, period. We enjoy killing for its own sake, but have no particular animus toward the elderly and the sick. Think about it. They are simply easier to kill. If we targeted the healthy and the young, we'd certainly kill fewer of them, and may even get into harm's way ourselves.
It's simple, really, you kill those easiest to kill. If you're a killer, which the OP has correctly labeled progressives, such as myself.
I kid.


Close. I actually kill because I drink blood to rejuvenate myself. However, only the blood of the most inbred, ignorant neocon is effective. Because the blood hasn't been pumped in and out of a brain, it's more pure. I select my victims by attending Sarah Palin book signing events. I just grab the first 5 people in line.


As long as my other Comrade Progressives are coming out of the closet -- I might as well admit, that I don't drink the blood of children to maintain my youth -- that's an old wives tale. I just drink it to be socially accepted at all the "MoveOn.org" parties. If you don't drink baby-blood or bathe in the flesh of a virgin, you just stand out as "not one of the chose Progressives."

>> then of course, we all light black candles and worship Obama -- as he is the Lucifer's child on earth of course.
By the way - this is sarcasm. I just want that to be clear because it's obvious that some people have a loose grip on reality these days --or maybe the internets have allowed some people anonymity to voice their opinions, when a decade ago, they would have just stayed quiet. Progress means you take on step forward and half a step back. Oh well...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
There is obviously an issue with they way the OP has grouped together "the elderly and the sick". Firstly, there is a big difference between being temporarily ill, having a clinical illness and being terminally ill. To just lump those all together is nonsensical. Secondly, this is clearly a character assassination attempt against those who identify themselves as Progressives. The thread title also works on a subliminal level by implanting the idea that what "Progressives" believe is actually the antithesis of Progression.

Thirdly, this will ultimately turn into a debate about Euthanasia. Does somebody that is unhappy with their existence have the right to terminate their own life in a humane and convenient manner? Yes I believe they do. There of course need to be regulations in place to prevent people who stand to gain financially from somebody else's death.

For those that don't support legalised Euthanasia, perhaps you should consider the following: does your right to believe nobody should take their own lives take priority over somebody's right to be free from the pain and suffering caused by a terminal illness that has drastically reduced the quality of their lives?

edit on 28/12/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling


>> All good, nuanced points -- which I'm sad to say is a waste of time when someone starts out with a straw-man argument to begin with. Sure, something like 90% of health care costs go for the last 3 months of life with the elderly -- but hey, it's the same crowd that thinks firing teachers is "cost cutting" but we can afford rich freeloading and Trillion-dollar wars.



new topics




 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join