Pat Robertson, In His Own Words, on Social Security and Banking System

[mjr256]

@whoo689

Ron Paul is a Christian fanatic. He publicly denies evolution, opting to believe in the theory of things being magically poofed into existence "I Dream of Jeanie" style by "God". And since his denial obviously isn't based on scientific or grounds, I'm at a loss for what else would motivate a person to embrace biblical creationism but, you know, religion.

[waluum]

"magically poofed into existence 'I Dream of Genie' style"? That kind of outlandish assumption is a testament to your lack of reason. No serious Christian believes that creation was that simple, nor does Ron Paul. Evolution is not even inherently denied by all Christians as a means that brought us to where we are. God is considered the arbitor, initiator and guide of this universe and all that inhabits it, but the complexities of its formation are not nearly as easily described as you say.

[mjr256]

@whoo689

You're saying that no serious Christian believes that the whole universe was created in 6 days through magic? I beg to differ cause I personally know hundreds of Christians who do. I never claimed evolution was denied by all Christians, so don't straw man me. But every Christian must by definition still accept that magic at least played a role. & if they accept evolution, then they're directly contradicting the Bible.

Where did the first life come from? Natural forces or magic?

[waluum]

A serious Christian is not one by proclamation, but by reason and their commitment to understanding the scriptures and the will and way of God. That said, I say again, no serious Christian believes that the "universe was created in 6 days through magic". Why do you keep saying "magic"? You're selling creation theology short, and your own ability to reason as well...

[waluum]

...Acceptance of the process of evolution does not contradict scripture, but acceptance of the generally accepted historical theory does. The idea that we randomly evolved from minerals, eventually to apes, and finally to humans without any divine intervention is not in line with Christian ideology, but you're welcome to believe that if you feel so convinced by the limited evidence at hand.

The answer isn't as simple as deciding between natural and [presently] supernatural forces. It's both.

[dmp079]

Yeah get rid of Social Security and trust in the stock market and private investments???? LOL! Social Security should be a lock-box investment for people's retirement, and disability payments. It should be like a Money Market Fund. That has no taxes on the investment and you get a monthly increase without no worries of losing it.

The FED should be owned by the US Treasury and audited like every other institution.

See Patty you make some sense, but not enough.

[waluum]

It is not an issue of trust, but one of freedom to exercise personal responsibility and ensure a well-rounded potential. Social security is nearly bankrupted, so how does that speak for the trustworthiness of government?

Private investment for retirement requires more time, skill and effort to ensure success, but so does everything else in the free market. Should we then embrace Socialism so as to make things easier on people? What good would that do for human potential.

I agree on the Fed.

[dmp079]

Social Security is not bankrupt due to the fact is taken as a payroll tax. As long as people work it will stay around. The problem is fraud and abuse. It is meant as a safety net. Not something to live permanently off of. If you want to do private investment as well then it is the choice of that person.

People in this country is sooo scared of SOCIALISM. It is here already. We have a mixed economy and it should be like that. Free market capitalism does not work. History proved that.

[waluum]

Care to elaborate on the fraud and abuse? And do you support people reinvesting what they put into their social security accounts?

Socialism isn't here, as a mixed economy is not socialism. Socialism is complete, or majority, government control of the the markets. We don't have that, but we seem to be constantly pushing dangerously closer to it, which is good reason for concern.

But no government can make a single better decision for an individual than they can if they are apt to do so.

[dmp079]

I advise you to look up the history on Social Security about fraud and abuse.

A mixed economy is an economic system that includes a variety of public and government control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism. THAT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAS. Sorry I do not drink the libertarian kool-aid, if that is you are pouring.

[waluum]

"Look at the history" is how you defend your opinion to someone whose mind you may be able to change? My opinion on this issue is just as subjective as yours, so if you don't mind directing me to specific points I would love to look into them. Perhaps I'll be enlightened, perhaps not.

I'm no libertarian, and I think we need to differentiate between the theory and the system of socialism. The theory is practiced, but not enough to be under the system. The system is what most people rightly fear.

[dmp079]

I am not afraid of government control in the economy in certain areas(It is called regulation). The government has the power to regulate commerce. It is in the constitution. Which in turn gives the states the same power as well. The history of fraud and abuse is avaliable via the internet. Look it up. Just have to elect the government represenatives who are for the people and do what the constitution says. That trend has not been followed in almost 30 years.

[waluum]

As I said, I'm not a libertarian, so I'm not opposed to the idea of regulation of the private sector. The issue is, and always has been, how far we should regulate.

You seem more interested in expressing your views than enlightening people to the reason behind them. One more chance: care to pick an example of fraud/abuse in the Social Security system to discuss?...

[waluum]

...Representatives reflect the state of mind of the majority of the public, so it's no surprise who we have in office. The average voter is not genuinely interested enough in the laws that effect them, and the preservation of their rights, to take the time to delve into the issues and records of the candidates so as to put ones with more integrity in power, and expanding government is indirectly responsible for that (the coddling which promotes apathetic detachment from personal responsibility).

[waltermh111]

I disagree with him on SS issue, but of course Robertson is right about the fed reserve.

But an idiot is bound to be right on something.

[waluum]

Perhaps you think you're right all of the time?

What do you say to those who call you an idiot and can provide reason for their claim?

Face it, you're bound to disagree based on your personal interests and subjective outlook on the proper balance of realistic and idealistic policy, so at least try not to insult someone just because they think we can take a different road to the same relative destination.For your own sake I suggest trying harder to see something to appreciate about their views.

[waltermh111]

Well, if they can provide reason for their claim and I cant counter it, then I am inclined to change my mind on something.

Wouldnt you?

But the reason Robertson is an idiot isnt because I disagree with him on things.

Its because hes an idiot.

Hes a hateful dogmatic, fundamentalist, radical, nutjob.

You either dont know his history or happen to agree with his insane beliefs.

If you can disagree with all that he says (not just in this video) and still "appreciate" his views, i worry for you

[waluum]

Don't expect RightWingWatch to allow for a defense through elaboration.

How about you elaborate on how he is "hateful" and a "nutjob" (cite evidence or be specific)?

[waltermh111]

dang, your hand has to be held the whole way huh?

Heres a few quotes for you

politicalhumor.about . com/od/funnyquotes/a/patrobert­son.htm

Please, if you know so little about Robertson, dont presume to speak for him.

You cant defend a man you dont know.

Some of us have had more then enough experience with him to know better.

[waluum]

I ask a question and your response is to try to arrogantly belittle me? Clearly you're not interested in helping anyone to see your side of things, just in spouting your own opinions.

I know plenty about Pat Robertson, but thanks for assuming. I was trying to lead your into a discussion on your specific reasoning. Please pick a quote and elaborate - I'm really curious to know what you think what you think on the issues.

[waltermh111]

I can only know you based on what you write and you wrote like you know nothing about him, and insult RightWingWatch.

I dont feel bad for thinking you have little interest in anything but at best playing devils advocate, but at worst, being a contrarian or defender of Robertson.

Now either you know his past and are defending it still, in which case I have no interest in a debate with you, or you know almost nothing about him and still defend him, in which case, I want nothing to do with you.

[waluum]

I've not seen RightWingWatch post an elaborated defense from Robertson so I have no reason to expect they would - especially considering that they have not done so for anyone they previously featured (it's clearly a partisan group). How is stating a fact an insult?

I'm not here for fun and games. I agree with much of what Robertson says, but I'm genuinely interested in understanding why others do not.

As I said, I know quite a bit. Why the lack of interest, if you don't mind my asking?

[whoo689]

Lol. As a libertarian, I AGREE with both of those things. They're not fanatical, not unless Ron Paul's a Christian fanatic. This clip was just stupid, PFAW. There are legitimate arguments for privatizing SS and abolishing the fed!

[waltermh111]

actually, ron paul is a christian fanatic

How much do you actually know about his history, not just what you hear in the media.

youtube . com/watch?v=wR0puqpiwbk

I dont have the dislike of Paul as this guy does because at least Paul is honest about his beliefs.

Even in a few venues, hes pretty much admitted that many restrictions would be allowed by him on the state level, even if on the federal level he may act libertarian and control his want to control others.

[RadarKat73080]

Of course he wants to get rid of Social Security! He's rich!