No, not really, but the contorted and tortured logic used in trying to
argue the point is still entertaining.
On May 20, 1:03 pm, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh Frank!
>
> That made sense! Do you expect a Moonbat to comprehend or understand
> this? Studio is looking like a deer in the headlights right now!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:00 PM, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Studio,
>
> > "You won't receive your car or home insurance back just because you
> > paid in either retard."
>
> > Your analogy is seriously flawed. Wealthy or poor, if you drive a car
> > you have the potential to have an accident and need insurance.
> > However, if Social Security worked as you propose, then someone
> > meeting your definition of wealth would have no chance of ever
> > collecting. So, really, what you're suggesting is that someone who
> > doesn't drive should still be paying car insurance to help pay for the
> > insurance of those who do.
>
> > On May 19, 10:44 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 19, 12:00 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Then why take it from the rich. Why should they pay what you are
> > > > insuring they cannot receive back.
>
> > > You won't receive your car or home insurance back just because you
> > > paid in either retard.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment