Aborting Baby Boomers F*ck Social Security
- added October 17, 2007
- 26 responses
-
-
embed code
-
-
-
- rawbird
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (33577)
- Not News (25191)
- Politics (21530)
- Comedy (8015)
- Humor (7570)
- Abortion (247)
- Funny Videos (149)
- Adam Fish (73)
- Rawbird (72)
- Social Security (22)
- Baby Boomers (11)
In Kentucky, talk radio teaches us that baby boomers destroyed Social Security by aborting all the people that were supposed to invest their labor and capital in Social Security
-
Well. I suppose that's one theory. What are you up to in Kentucky, anyway?
-
wow, they're really stretching on that one...
-
-
-
-
- sarahbelle
- 10 months ago
-
-
Kentucky for Creation Museum pod, another stretch of imagination... look for it.
-
width="486" height="407">hey rawbird...There is a pod on Current about this museum...may wanna take a look.
-
Did they take into consideration that some of those abortions may have developed into mentally or terminally ill babies, or maybe those babies would grow up to be on welfare, or maybe drug addicts, or would contribute to an already disproportionate over populated world, or even worse... would have grown up to be lawyers or politicians? And wouldn't they also be collecting on that money they put into the system? Social security is a mess because the government keeps delving into that money for shit they want but don't need.
-
And hello, if Kentucky wasn't so big on in-breeding, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on disability. That would save us some money... Hahaha. You see what ignorant thinking can help you come up with.
-
Hahaha
Short but cool -
hollyg, that is a repackaged prepackaged stock footage compilation, I'm bringing the rawbird Creation Museum.
-
Oh, I know you're gonna bring it! I just thought I'd point your attention toward the previous one in case you hadn't seen it.
-
Wow, that never crossed my mind until now...abortion affecting Soc Sec...?
I am a gen x'er. My generation spans 10 years, 1967-1977. Let's figure this...there are approx 3700 abortions/day X 365 day/yr X 10 years = 13,505,000 abortions. WOW! That's 1/3 of my generation gone...1/3 of scientists, teachers, police, neighbors, friends, artists, musicians, entreprenuers, and taxpayers gone... -
Darino brilliant integer quantification of the absurdity ad naseum...
-
thank you...it's a gift
-
Abortion kills - not just people
-
i really don't think you should be driving and making a video at the same time....
-
Your video was hysterical! What would Imus say?
I only wish this type of radio shock jock limited himself to the state of Kentucky. Sadly, these ignoramus's are EVERYWHERE ... -
guilty as charged.
-
-
-
-
- bodybeyond
- 10 months ago
-
-
We should probably be grateful that the baby boomers didn't have as many children as their parents did because the world's population is growing at an unsustainable rate. I mean what ever happened to the "Zero Population Growth" moments?
I was recently watching an old "Match Game" re-run on the Game Show Network, and the lovely late, great Brett Somers even referred to Zero Population Growth -- that was 30 years ago!
To expect our children to care for us, or to even consider having MORE children to care for us, is outrageous. To create them for the purposes of late life income and taxpaying? What's the word? Mmmmm, selfish?
Parents should want children to live their lives and be happy, not expect them to take care of them. That was not the social contract when they brought that child into the world. -
bully2,
It's not selfish, its both smart and wise. The older generation is needed to teach the younger from experience. It's not selfish its co-dependence. It's selfish for the younger generation not to take care of the older which sacrificed again and again for them when they were children. But this isn't even the issue at hand.
And world over population comes down to the same thing "selfishness," this planet is very capable of supporting billions more, the question is if each person will play their role and share. Even if you disagree with this last statement it is on no grounds that you can counter because it all comes down to speculation. -
RichardN, I think you actually just made my case for me. And you said I have NO GROUND ON WHICH TO COUNTER??!?!?!
By definition, the role of the older generation, the parents, are to teach the young from their experiences. This is done SELFLESSLY. If you look anywhere in the animal kingdom, once the parent teaches it's baby animal how to fend for itself, it leaves the nest or whatever, and that baby does not return to take care of the parent in it's old age.
For parents to have children EXPECTING that their children will take care of them, that would be selfish. Their role was to take care of their children, and they fulfilled that role. Now, they are on their own. If their children still wish to bond, that is a social choice, not an obligation. -
bully2,
First of all, I was unaware of the day when humans were reduced to mere animals, and when animals had money and health care and doctors.
Second, you misinterpreted what I said, when I stated, "this last statement." That statement had nothing to do with the selfishness argument, it had to do with the world population issue. Which cannot be reasonably argued because it comes down to mere speculation, instead we should worry about the nearer future not something that could maybe "potentially" become a problem a long way out.
Third, I agree with you that parents act selflessly, but I also think humans (not mere animals) also should be people of virtue. If parents take of their children when the children are incapable of taking care of themselves, should it be unreasonable for those same children when matured to take care of their now incapable parents?
Unless a person puts aside their own wants and makes a sacrifice, selfishness exists. It then becomes a paradox between the parent not being selfish toward their children and their children not being selfish against their parents. My question is who should not be selfish the dying generation or the generation to come into power?
r,sfc -
Conservative talk-radio pwned us again!!!
-
What an "argument"? or point?
TerryTate please refrain from adding comments as such, they add nothing to the arguments at hand, instead add some logical responses. Or you can continue to just dodge "reason" and "truth" for flamboyancy. -
Dear richardn,
I was commenting on the video, and if you want me to refrain from commenting on rawbird's submission I'd recommend you go to your fridge and pour yourself a nice tall, refreshing glass of shut the hell up.
I could get Libertarian on your pseudo-psychological B.S. about who's being selfish, but I'll simply say my views are much closer to Bully2's than yours.
As for you becoming the decider of what comments are welcome on Current, I'd cite the fact that after a week of inactivity the fact that it took you less than half a day to chastise me for my 2 random cents as evidence that you desperately need a girlfriend (or boyfriend) whatever blows your skirt up.
Kisses,
TerryTate -
TerryTate,
First, did you mean "pawned us" or "owned us"?
I was thinking "pawned us" which has a totally different meaning than "owned us" I looked at your comment and realized it could have been a typo and probably was.
I guess I would have to say sorry for jumping on you like that.
I am so sick of people "poking fun at" and "debunking" an argument simply because they do not agree, without any from of a logical or reasonable argument.
I also am the victim to a lot of "tolerant" people who cannot stand my views to the point they become hostile (with words of course). Which seems self-contradictory to me. So once again I would have to apologize for subjecting you to the same treatment others are giving to me. I was too hasteful in my assumptions and reading. -
I meant pwnt us in the sense that wikipedia describes in leetspeak or l33t with a heavy since of sarcasm in reference to the idea that our current situation is heavily influenced by the sexual actions of the baby boomers.
I personally subscribe to the belief that ALL people should be free to do whatever they choose so long as it does not impede the freedoms of another individual.
I personally consider myself a democratic-libertarian and believe that people are much better at governing themselves than the governmental bureaucracy is.
As an example, when the government ala G. "Dubya" Bush vetoed a bill supporting embryonic stem cell research it took some time then researchers figured out a way to make skin cells mimic embryonic stem cells. The wedge issue now appears to be gone (though people are still welcome in my opinion to argue if a significant number of lives would've been saved if the federal government had supported stem-cell research all along.
Either way, I think that American innovation will lead our world for many generations to come: and the U.S.A. will be better, stronger, and more resilient if we allow the market to define us rather than the government.
Anywho, apology accepted. And I hope that the beliefs that unite us are stronger than the technicalities that divide us.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
