Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (103547)	10/31/2013 3:28:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218083

It's amusing that you think [and others do too] that accepting government payments is somehow incompatible with being a libertarian or being against such government payments. <died on Medicare and Social Security..> Less amusing is the implied viciousness in the idea that she deserved to suffer. But that's not surprising because the "caring" socialists do not in fact care. Criminals like you take money at the point of a gun then offer some of it back if a bunch of paperwork is filled in to prove old age for "social security" or need for medical treatment. Why you think somebody who opposes the robbery should not accept a little bit of their money back is a puzzle, other than the usual reason that reason is not a function of the unintelligent, who are the sort of people who are in favour of robbery in the first place. People who can reason can see that accepting "social security" payments from governments is quite reasonable, even while opposing such payments. If people are locked in a National Socialist concentration forced labour camp, and accept food from the camp guards, that doesn't mean the prisoners should not complain about being in a cage, or about the quality and quantity of the food and medical treatment. Going to the camp doctor is reasonable too. Obamacare is taking over. Mqurice