DEBATE PART 3!!!!

[The True Adonis]

I always hear about this, but how many people actually get more than they put in?

Plus, factor in the people who put in and die before they can ever collect it... I'm not sure I buy that there's a bunch of free loaders getting social security in and of itself.

I've been putting into it since I was 12, I highly doubt I will get everything back that I've been forced to put into it.

Family members can usually collect it though.

[The True Adonis]

That debate was just horrible.  All of them are pretty stupid and really do not have a clue of what they are doing.  I think they actually are as dumb as their target audience.

[240 is Back]

She stopped short of outright saying the US should copy the laws, but expressed sympathy with the idea.

Oh.  So she never said we should do it in the USA.  She just "sympathized".   We sympathize with a lot of things and don't do shit.

I guess what i'm saying it - with all we know about politics and american culture - do you really think any politican would ever commit political suicide by taking our guns on a mandatory buyback basis? Even hilary said "not that we should copy it".

[TuHolmes]

Family members can usually collect it though.

I know that spouses can, but I am unaware of others.

[240 is Back]

That debate was just horrible.  All of them are pretty stupid and really do not have a clue of what they are doing.  I think they actually are as dumb as their target audience.

Yeah, they attacked the media every time they couldn't answer a tough question.

I WANT the dems and repubs to be faced with tough Qs.  If you can't be straight with the public on a simple Q, how the F can you handle yourself against Putin?

[The True Adonis]

I know that spouses can, but I am unaware of others.

Children of deceased family members, once they turn 18 can also collect it if the spouse did not.

[tonymctones]

Oh.  So she never said we should do it in the USA.  She just "sympathized".   We sympathize with a lot of things and don't do shit.

I guess what i'm saying it - with all we know about politics and american culture - do you really think any politican would ever commit political suicide by taking our guns on a mandatory buyback basis? Even hilary said "not that we should copy it".

HAHAHAHHAHAHA so you get proven wrong and you try and weasel out by saying well she really only says its worth thinking about it and stopped short of saying we should?

shit man, youve gone downhill bro

you used to be just a piece of shit, now....I dont even know

[TuHolmes]

Children of deceased family members, once they turn 18 can also collect it if the spouse did not.

There must be some limit to this.

What are the rules there?

[240 is Back]

HAHAHAHHAHAHA so you get proven wrong and you try and weasel out by saying well she really only says its worth thinking about it and stopped short of saying we should?

shit man, youve gone downhill bro

you used to be just a piece of shit, now....I dont even know

She said we shouldn't copy it.  She was very clear.

I think hilary is a bag of shit and I'll never vote for her.  But I can be honest and say "she isn't going to try to ban guns".

People would be shooting cops 24/7, it'd be a huge black market, violent gangs... shit, it'll never happen. 

[tonymctones]

She said we shouldn't copy it.  She was very clear.

I think hilary is a bag of shit and I'll never vote for her.  But I can be honest and say "she isn't going to try to ban guns".

People would be shooting cops 24/7, it'd be a huge black market, violent gangs... shit, it'll never happen. 

no what she said was...""It would be worth considering doing it on the national level,"

are you seriously that much of a fucking weasel to not admit that?

[The True Adonis]

There must be some limit to this.

What are the rules there?

No limit really.  It will be the full amount that the spouse would normally get.  After my father died when I was a child, my mother never bothered to claim it.  I decided to claim it when I turned 18 and invested all of it.  It was a large (max) amount.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html

[tonymctones]

I can agree she isnt going to try and ban all guns

Carson isnt going to do away with abortions or medicare but you seem to give that credence

[The True Adonis]

I can agree she isnt going to try and ban all guns

Carson isnt going to do away with abortions or medicare but you seem to give that credence

But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so.  THAT is dangerous.

[tonymctones]

But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so.  THAT is dangerous.

and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?

[240 is Back]

But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so.  THAT is dangerous.

truth

[TuHolmes]

No limit really.  It will be the full amount that the spouse would normally get.  After my father died when I was a child, my mother never bothered to claim it.  I decided to claim it when I turned 18 and invested all of it.  It was a large (max) amount.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html

Ah... Got it.

Yes, you have to be what is considered a "minor" (18 or 19 is allowed)

Spouses can receive it as well.

[tonymctones]

truth

and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?

^^^
and this isnt "truth"?

Hahahaha fucking moron

[The True Adonis]

and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?

Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution.  TOTALLY different process.

[tonymctones]

Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution.  TOTALLY different process.

actually abortions are deemed part of "life, liberty and pursuit or happiness"...overturning that would take a constitutional amendment as well ;-)

[tonymctones]

Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution.  TOTALLY different process.

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/roe-v-wade-and-right-abortion

The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy

In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade,  the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.  In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the woman’s right is “fundamental,” meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to “strict scrutiny.”  To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.  The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.

[tonymctones]

The Court held that the Due Process Clause’s guarantee that no individual shall be deprived of “liberty” applies to this most personal decision.

[The True Adonis]

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/roe-v-wade-and-right-abortion

The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy

In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade,  the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.  In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the woman’s right is “fundamental,” meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to “strict scrutiny.”  To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.  The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.

There is a difference between using the Constitution to determine legality (something that can change depending on how judges vote or how they interpret the law) and requiring that the Constitution to be amended and changed (2nd amendment) for legality.

You do know this (at least I think you do).  Totally different process.

[tonymctones]

There is a difference between using the Constitution to determine legality (something that can change depending on how judges vote) and requiring that the Constitution to be amended and changed (2nd amendment).

You do know this (at least I think you do).  Totally different process.

LOL what roe v wade established is that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, it wasnt simply determining legality of the act. Something can be legal and not be constitutional protected...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT?

people have the right under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to get abortions, just like we have the right to bear arms.

[The True Adonis]

LOL what roe v wade established is that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, it wasnt simply determining legality of the act. Something can be legal and not be constitutional protected...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT?

people have the right under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to get abortions, just like we have the right to bear arms.

The difference is, you have to change an amendment to get rid of one of those things and one you do not.

[tonymctones]

The difference is, you have to change an amendment to get rid of one of those things and one you do not.

hahaha as it has been determined that it is a constitutional right.....YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AN AMENDMENT TO GET RID OF ABORTION ENTIRELY.

restrictions can be placed on it just like they already have been and have been on guns, to ban abortions...youre going to need a constitutional amendment