1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Gotta Love tThese Chain Emails...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Seacowboys, Jul 22, 2011.

  1. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Got this today and wonder how much is fact and how much is subjective or syllogistic?
    Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.

    I didn't try to clean up the language in this message. It makes a better impact as it is.

    Entitlement my ass , I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money , doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout !! Congressional benefits , aka. free healthcare , outrageous retirement packages , 67 paid holidays , three weeks paid vacation , unlimited paid sick days , now that's welfare , and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down..............

    What the HELL's wrong??? WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!

    Tuesday's Daily Bulletin paper, ran two articles on the front page side by side :

    1- Calif 's 20 Billion Dollar Budget Deficit

    2- The Calif Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits.

    Why don't they just deport them when they arrive to register?

    3- Last year they ran an article on the yearly costs to Calif Taxpayers from Illegals using Hospital Emergency Rooms for their general health care -

    At just one hospital the cost to tax payers totaled over 25 million a year

    Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!

    We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????

    In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan ......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

    Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

    They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?

    We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

    AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment –etc. etc.

    They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

    Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.

    Sad isn't it?
  2. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    makes ya wonder, dont it?
  3. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    I was well aware of all the above, but just reading it right now probably raised my blood pressure 30 points across the board.
    The Congressional entitlements rip off of the american people has to come to and end.
    When those greedy lying SOB's cutoff my military retirement or social security I am going to start taking scalps.
    jungatheart and dragonfly like this.
  4. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    Hmmm, is now the time for me to consider a store selling pitchforks, and perhaps a few torches?
    "Keel the monster"!
    Not to raise any blood pressure points a bit higher, but what really "TICKS" me off is: the people that claim to be TOO FAT to work, and they are ONLY 24 years of age, still living at home, under momma's skirts, and she's been on the "system" all her life as well! (Just Warps' my crackers!) MY NEPHEW IS ONE, HIS BROTHER IS ANOTHER ( BUT HIS IS DRUG RELATED, SO WE HAVE TO EXCUSE THAT! ???) Then the nephews girlfriend is another, as is her mother!
    I'm going to go take my BP meds now!
  5. Miss Capri

    Miss Capri Monkey+

    It's really time republicans stopped with the far-right chain emails, and this one based on a couple of supposed news articles - as if the papers get it right all the time, chain letters certainly don't, and they play on people's emotions, pushing their hot issue buttons for one purpose only - to get people forwarding/reposting. Not every immigrant is "illegal" or totally sapping the system and not every "real American" is interested in "the all American dream" and working for a living - not all seniors are getting their life savings sapped. The system is mucked up, always has been, always will be. Chain emails never have or will change that, and unfortunately, they make the non-left look as if they'll believe anything. That gives the deems a bunch of opportunity to lulz and try making themselves look better to anyone who is undecided. there are a lot of issues that IMO should be completely dropped from both parties, the media needs to stop being biased to the left, and republicans and Christians need to stop with the forwards which are really a shot in the foot.
    chelloveck likes this.
  6. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Gutsy call Miss Capri

    Particularly for one who is still a probationary member....but I like your thinking...and admire your chutzpa in saying what you believe, even though what you may believe is politically incorrect...at least in this forum.

    Get used to the spam forwarded e-mail phenomenon at this site...usually the posters don't fact check the origin, authorship, or the content of such e-mails...and when challenged...in my experience...haven't really cared that they have not done so. The usual justification is that it reflects how they feel about the subject matter...or that it jells with them. Accuracy, truthfulness, being unbiased, etc etc...is unimportant. What IS important is telling their mates here of a like mind, what they Want to hear (self affirmitive propoganda)...even if such articles are dishonest, full of inaccuracies, distortions, and fallacies of logical reasoning.

    The religion, and political forums, and most anywhere that there are threads dealing with the Second Ammendment, gun control legislation and gun ownership rights seem to be places where spam forwarded e-mails tend to be endemic.

    Welcome to the site Miss Capri....I for one welcome anyone who'll shoulder some of the load in challenging orthodoxy here...but, that is par for the course for a Diabolus Causidicus. ; )

    If you really want to cut your teeth on demolishing one such spam forwarded e-mail....try this one on for size.


    the sponsor of this rather silly e-mail is renowned for copying and pasting e-mails of similar sillyness.
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Miss C, welcome aboard, even if you have yet to recognize that tongues are often planted in cheeks (Chelly is one of the biggies with that) with posts, especially if they are controversial subjects. Opinions welcome, and (most of the time) will get civil discourse on the matter.

    Gotta agree that those chain mails get tiresome, especially the tenth time around. Of course, there's no requirement to read them here.
  8. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Sir ..I'm not sure whether I should

    Feel flattered or damned as the site's joker! : O

    ghrit likes this.
  9. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    We're all immigrates and if I'm not mistaken that word was never used in this piece .
    So what is your agenda here ,just stir the pot or what.
    A lot of the members here live out west and they seem to think that a person should come to this LEGALLY and not break the laws of this Nation.

  10. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    A debate is not mere contradiction

    in the context of items #2 and #3 of the Journal article quoted in the OP, that the author of the journal was referring to illegal immigrants....the word immigrant was implicit within the word highlighted as "ILLEGALS", unless of course you can demonstrate that ther is some other class of illegals that are causing this grave affront???

  11. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    And I'm suppose to care what you think ,because .
    ColtCarbine, Sapper John and BTPost like this.
  12. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I respect sir, your right to disagree....

    But do so in ways that do you credit, rather than dishonour.

    I had no expectation that you would care.....not one jot. I called you on two matters raised by you in your reply to Miss Capri, and you reply with yet another fallacy of reasoning (Non sequiter). So I shall take your reply as conceding the point...not that you will care about that either! ; )

    I don't know whether your remark concerning Miss Capri's use of the word immigrant represents a lack of ability on your behalf of comprehending the english language, was an example of pharisaic nit pickery, or an evasion of the substantive issues that Miss Capri was arguing...but it may be gracious to acknowledge to Miss Capri, that you were in error on that point. Also, indirectly slurring Miss Capri as a pot stirrer, without knowing anything about her, or without giving her the opportunity first of explaining her motives (which were quite evident in her post, if you had bothered to read it thoroughly) is rather ungentlemanly. No need to lose face by making your acknowledgements publicly...I'm sure that Miss Capri would more than appreciate a PM in lieu.
  13. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I concede nothing to you, an immigrant is a person that was not born in the country that they now reside and are there legally having followed the law .
    An illegally is one who broke the law in getting there and in most countries it is not tolerated at all.
    So maybe you should brush up on your English(AMERICAN).
  14. mysterymet

    mysterymet Monkey+++

    I am a fan of legal immigrants but Not illegal immigrants.
  15. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    I wanted to say something...but it got lost in the back and forth discussion...
    Dang it!
    Sapper John and chelloveck like this.
  16. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Oh dear...what does a real dictionary say???

    Well....as real as any online dictionary can be that is.

    Nice try at weaseling your way around the issue, by creating your very own personal definition of immigrant, but here are some actual dictionary definitions of the word, immigrant.

    Let's examine your definition of immigrant more closely:

    By an "illegally" (sic) you mean an illegal immigrant which, at best, according to your definition... is only partially correct. An illegal immigrant may well have emmigrated quite legally....but whose legal status may have changed to illegal once having emmigrated. A change in legal immigrant status from legal to illegal may have occured for any of a number of reasons. On the other hand, an immigrant may achieve legal immigrant status, even though they may have entered a country illegally...this is often the case with asylum seekers applying for asylum status under UN conventions. By your definition...such people would be "illegally"(sic). How would you describe, (consistent with your own "special" definition) immigrants who are accorded legal status, yet who have arrived illegally??? "Illegally" or legal migrants???

    What is not tolerated??? an "Illegally" (sic) or " one who broke the law in getting there " ??? The ambiguity of the subject and predicate of the sentence (the predicate of the sentence being "in most countries it is not tolerated at all" ) has been caused by poor sentence construction, and the redundant use of the pronoun "it" in the predicate.

    Let me help you by reconstructing what you wrote to resembling something closer to perhaps what you may have intended to mean.

    (Illegals are those who broke the law getting to the country they emmigrated to. In most countries, illegal immigrants are not tolerated at all.)

    Although my editing of your original compound sentence, may have improved the grammatical clarity of what you perhaps meant to express...however, you would have been on much safer ground if you had written... (in some countries (or, even in many countries), illegal immigrants are not tolerated).

    As unpalatable as it may seem to some, in the USA (and most likely in a number of other countries around the world too),illegal immigrants ARE tolerated (to a greater or lesser extent), though often, very unhappily and very reluctantly. The reality is that the contribution of illegal immigrants..the peaceful folk who work for their living, who otherwise go about their daily lives lawfully, paying their taxes (mostly indirect taxes admittedly...though many would probably be content to pay income taxes also if it could be done without running the risk of deportation), who are an integral part of their local communities and the economy in general....would be sorely missed if, en mass, they were simultaneously deported back to their countries of origin.

    Imagine if you will...a wetback version of the rapture, where all illegal immigrants were simultaneously plucked from the United States of America...leaving only native born, and legal immigrants in America.

    Well, the unintended consequences of purging America of illegal immigrants would probably be huge: among other things...

    A spike in the cost of fruit and vegetables and just about any other product that relies on "illegals" for cheap, exploited sweat labour.

    There would be a massive hit to some state economies.

    The United states economy would lose the consumer demand of some 20 million or so people, which would retard the American economy from chugging along (if the American economy can be said to be chugging along).

    There would be a huge opening of job markets in some states for native born citizens and legal immigrants of low pay, low status, cruddy, dirty, hazardous, hard labouring jobs that many Americans (Illegal immigrants also) would find very unappealing if they had better choices. Naturally, native born American and legal immigrant job snobs, will be reluctant to work at the pay rates and working conditions that "illegals" are often compelled to accept. Concommitant rises in pay and conditions sufficient to attract replacement workers could lead to some businesses (that also employ "legals"), closing, compelling some enterprises to go off shore to survive, or to rely on imports that are cheaper than comparable items that can be sourced in America. In any case. a national pogrom of illegal immigrants may cause local, state and the national economies to contract further than they already have, possibly causing the kind of economic depression, that most Americans would prefer not to contemplate, let alone experience.

    These are but a few of the possible negative affects of purging all illegal immigrants en mass...I am sure that there are probably many more.

    Undoubtedly there would be some benefits derived from such an improbable scheme. Less pressure on public welfare, lower demands on public health, less demand on the justice system, policing and penal / corrections resources...etc etc etc....but these institutions too employ native born americans and legal immigrants...so I guess the surplus technical and professional workers rendered redundant can feel some small degree of comfort that they can always find a job picking the beans or cleaning the toilets that were formerly attended to by "wetbacks".
  17. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Defense attorney logic and an awful lot of words to say nothing.I've read many of your post Cello and you just swarm with words that of the boredom spectrum .
    Sorry for the hijack DF all I was doing was responding to comment .
  18. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Cheer up! : )

    Not defence attorney logic....just logic. If one evidently is unable to frame an argument clearly, cannot defend it cogently with reasoned logic, cannot provide valid evidence supporting the argument put forward, then a counter argument refuting your own polemic, will undoubtedly be boring...at least to you...and probably also to some of the fellow travellers here who agree with you.

    It is far easier (but less intellectually honest) to dismiss an argument that pwns your own by tossing into the forum, parthian throw away lines like it's "...an awful lot of words to say nothing" or "and you just swarm with words that of the boredom spectrum"(sic), but in actuality, it doesn't help Seacowboys very much, and it doesn't really support your own logically flawed case outlined in posts #9 and #13. Ad hominem argumentation rarely does help in a debate.

    I don't know why you are apologising to DF for hijacking the thread. You were debating comments made by Miss Capri, and myself, in relation to Seacowboy's opening post polemic. That is entirely a legitimate thing to do...and, ideally that is what forums (poor latin I know) are about...the free exchange of ideas, and the testing of assumptions, evidence and conclusions that stem from particular points of view. That you have not, on this occasion, effectively made and supported your own case, is disappointing, but not the end of the world, and hopefully not the end of your debating here.

    Cheer up...tomorrow is another day to knock my argumentation down....I look forward to the attempt with relish! : )
  19. Cephus

    Cephus Monkey+++ Founding Member

    There is no argument against the truth ,only opinions can be argued against .
    The truth is it is illegal to enter another country without going through the proper channels .
    Now you mat have another opinion about how the law should read but as I said opinions are sphincters everyone has at least one and some more than one .
  20. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

    I agree wth Cephus...ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are a serious problem in our nation...the cost of national treasure (taxpayers money)is in the trillons of dollars with social programs,free education,to include college in some states,increase in violent crime and the cost of incarceration,and medical costs passed on to the working taxpayers of this country...all the while ,law abiding citizens must do without and work harder to support those who break the law and never contribute to the tax base or society for that matter...most quickly develope a welfare mentality and expect to be given everything...this is the basic issue...
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary