As I began to sip my first pint moments later, I realized that what had just happened was a perfect illustration of a major fault of nearly all on the left. When they engage the paranoid fantasies of the right, they elevate the insanity to the point of relevance and, more importantly, the mainstream. And most of it these days isn't fucking relevant. Hell, it isn't even factual and is quite often infantile. Yet Democrats feel the need to respond, playing constant defense, and somehow whatever bit of bullshit was squirted out becomes part of the lexicon.
"Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" is one of such example of this childish dishonesty. "Mark =Brave Sir Robin" is another. Obviously, the next step after the former statement is "Social Security is responsible for 90 percent of the abortions that go on in this country." The latter statement, after a recent review of the Back to the Future movies, reminded me of the exchanges between Needles and Marty. Classic adolescent bullying.
So what does the left need to do? This:
My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.
Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.
Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:
I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.
Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.
Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers
Way to go, Amy! First of all, I'd like to congratulate her civics instructor. Whoever they are, they are fucking brilliant and clearly did a good job on the enduring understanding front. Second, this is an excellent illustration of playing offense AND not managing fantasies. It's straight to the point and puts a direct challenge out there in a public forum. Can you imagine what this debate would be like?
Obviously, it's never going to happen. Ms. Bachmann would be destroyed if she did it. By not doing it, she'll have to put up with that childish gnawing from her own ideological camp of being "chicken" but that's an easier pill to swallow. Better that than have your entire psychotic narrative be displayed for all its falsehood.
As is often the case with me, I stand humbled by a student's brilliance. I think I'm going to take a page out of Amy's book as should we all. In fact, I'm hoping that Amy engages the many Constitutional fantasists on the right in whatever career she chooses. But none of this is even the best part...
Students like Amy prove that our eduction system, though flawed and in need of improvement, does actually produce people that are very skilled in knowledgeable in matters of civics and history...so much so that they are willing to take on a sitting US Congress person on the subject of the United States Constitution. The example of Amy essentially torpedoes the Bircher notion that communists have taken over our school system. Her letter is demonstrative of the many students who won't coddle paranoia.
I should know. I see them every day.
58 comments:
Most likely the origins of this challenge lie in the TV show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" So it's not particularly brilliant or original. It's just a dopey stunt to embarrass Bachmann (who is incapable of shame or embarrassment).
It's impossible for Bachmann to accept such a challenge, and the people who made it know that. There would be no way for Bachmann to win on this one. It's like Saddam calling out George Bush for a duel: not gonna happen.
The only way such a challenge would be reasonable would be if Bachmann had somehow attacked Amy personally or denigrated the abilities of kids like Amy in some fashion relevant to such a contest. But Bachmann hasn't done that, to my knowledge. Bachmann has just spouted lies and nonsense for political advantage like so many other Republican politicians. Most of the time Bachmann knows she is lying, she's just saying these things because her supporters want to hear them. It's just like the birthers: they all know Obama was born in Hawaii, they just like to spout the lies, much the same way people repeat prayers in Church to make what they wish was true happen.
It's all beside the point, anyway. Everyone knows why Michele Bachmann was elected to Congress, and it has nothing to do with her intellect, and everything to do with her looks and snarky right-wing attitudes. She's the one who told a church full of supporters that God told her to run for Congress, and that her husband forced her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law, which she did against her wishes, because God demands wives to be submissive.
>does actually produce people that are very skilled in knowledgeable in matters of civics and history...
Huh? What in Amy's letter indicates she is very skilled or knowledgeable about civics and history? Did she include some list of Bachmann's misstatements, or is she making a general assertion that Bachmann is a poopiehead? Can't say I think much of Bachmann, but I don't see any basis for holding this Amy kid out as a shining example. For example:
>responsibility to better represent your gender nationally.
Identity politics garbage. Bachmann is either factually incorrect or not. Gender, race, or nose size has not a thing to do with it.
>"Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" is one of such example of this childish dishonesty. "Mark =Brave Sir Robin" is another.
Rofl. Mark, are you sure you want to mention those two items in such close proximity, when every time you are asked you explain your understanding of how Social Security works, you .. run away?
What you are you, Mark, CHICKEN? I guess this answers the question of what remains left in the tank of right wingers. Fucking Needles from Back to the Future.
Haplo9's comment here makes me think you should add something to your theory about engaging ass hats in childishly dishonest conversations. Most of the exchanges here seem similarly themed: Mark, prove your understanding of _______. It was a great ploy and sadly Mark fell for it far too many times because he thought we was engaging in an honest debate. Instead, he was being set up to be attacked personally in classic Nixonian style.
Now that it has been revealed to be part of an overall bullying strategy designed to reduce the conversation to lies and vindicative dishonesty, it seems only fitting that it's added in to the same parameters as engaging street people. They bully people as well into trying to give their nonsense a larger forum.
I accept your challenge and promise to read your blog if you decide to show us your knowledge of the US Constitution.
Start anytime. Pick something you feel strongly about.
And you say that you see students everyday that don't coddle paranoia? When would they have the time, when they are all convinced that they will be the next Mike Jordan? Same students, right? So they only coddle childish fantasies? Thank God that isn't the same as paranoia! They only coddle fantasies of rainbow-hued progressive unicorns spreading peace, love, and solar powered Utopian dreams. Or was it the dream of winning American Idol?
It's hard to keep it straight.
Sasquatch, I am disappointed you refer to Haplo's comment:
"Gender, race, or nose size has not a thing to do with it."
by calling him a childish asshat.
Discrimination for any physical quality is just plain silly. Please try to keep your hatred for those 'different' to you, to yourself. Some of us have either grown out of bigotry, or never saw the need for it in the first place.
How you can hate a black man like Willy Mays or Ola Tungee, is beyond my understanding.
>It was a great ploy
You found me out sasquatch - my diabolical scheme to get Mark to explain his understanding of certain phenomenon has its roots in a need to bully. I probably beat puppies when I was a kid too.
Or.. out here in reality-land, explaining your understanding of certain phenomenon is a very good way to zero in on why we might have policy differences. For example, if the most Mark will explain about his understanding of Social Security's trust fund is that it is a "fund which the government has taken very good care of", (not a verbatim quote, but close if my memory serves) I'm inclined to suspect that he is lacking some relatively basic knowledge about how Social Security is structured, and thus, his pronouncements about its health, ways to make it last longer, or the like are based on a misunderstanding. In other words, garbage in, garbage out. See how that works? It's not very useful to talk the effects of a system and how it might be changed if you don't understand how it works.
As to your pronouncements about childishly dishonest conversations sasquatch, here is some wisdom that I know will be wasted, but here goes:
If you spend more time attacking perceived motives of those that disagree with you rather than their reasoning or facts, that might be a good time to, you know, check yourself.
Put another way - if the result of your thinking is that you are awesome and those that oppose you are base, depraved individuals, you might want to rethink. Odds are, you aren't as awesome as you'd like to think (because all things being equal, everyone would prefer to think they are awesome.) Just saying.
Y'know, there are days when I really question why I believe that people are mostly capable of looking after themselves - and this is one of them.
The problem is, guys, that you don't want to have a serious discussion about Social Security. You'd rather make a comment like "Social Security is engaging in teenage slave trafficking" or something similarly tinged. As I said in this post, responding to something like that legitimizes BS and then we are caught in the managing fantasies trap again.
Now if something has changed since our rather lengthy discussion about SS from a few months ago, then I'd be up for a discussion. In other words, an examination of the pros and cons and how it should be fixed...you know, critical thinking. I suspect, though, that you don't want it to be fixed because you disagree with its premise to begin with and, like most government programs of this nature, you want it to fail because then you can win the argument.
Yet, if somehow, I am wrong about the above statement, the only obstacle remaining in our way would be this tactic.
show us your knowledge of the US Constitution
Who do I think I am, Bo Diddley? Yeah, that kind of shit won't wash anymore either. Get past both of these things and then, perhaps, we can talk.
If you spend more time attacking perceived motives of those that disagree with you rather than their reasoning or facts, that might be a good time to, you know, check yourself.
if the result of your thinking is that you are awesome
Well, Mark won't use it anymore but I will: The Rove...classic. I'm not the one that needs to change, Haplo9, you do. I know that's going to create a large amount of cognitive dissonance but too damn bad. You guys have been engaging Mark in the same way for years and he's right. It's childishly dishonest.
That's right Sasquatch! I refuse to acknowledge any more facts as long as they are coming from someone that disagrees with me!
Marxy, you are inadvertantly hilarious.
Your post lauds a girl for her challenge to debate the constitution. You say this is 'what the Left needs to do'.
Then you refuse to be drawn into... wait for it... debating what you think the constitution means.
Isn't it time for a gun control post or something?
The problem is, guys, that you don't want to have a serious discussion about Social Security.
That's pretty funny - especially coming from you. Your idea of serious is a Youtube emo-rant leave SocSec alone. Or are you ready to discuss why it makes sense to support middle and upper income old people on the backs of young poor workers? Please explain how that makes sense.
You see it really doesn't matter if I want SocSec to fail or succeed. It will fail (in its current form) due to simple demographics. That you insist on this being a disagreement about "wants" shows the intellectual immaturity you bring to the table.
"Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" is one of such example of this childish dishonesty.
If memory serves, you "disproved" that idea by 3 things:
1. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because Ponzi schemes collapse, and SS hasn't collapsed... yet. It doesn't matter that the mechanism is identical to a Ponzi scheme, it hasn't collapsed yet therefore it isn't the same.
2. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because "there was no intent to deceive." It doesn't matter that from day one it was deceptive, in that in order to collect a single penny a retiree would have to live seven years beyond the average lifespan at the time, there was "no intent to deceive."
3.Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because _____ said so.
But to point those things out is "childishly dishonest" in your world, is it?
In other words, an examination of the pros and cons and how it should be fixed...you know, critical thinking.
Isn't it time for a gun control post or something
Your idea of serious is a Youtube emo-rant leave SocSec alone.
3.Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because _____ said so.
So much for a serious discussion within the framework of critical thinking. At least Mark made the attempt. Cue the Brave Sir Robins and Mark is stupids.
Hey Santa, nice going, you just proved the point - no discussion of the actual issue. The next worthwhile thing you say will be the first. You and sasquatch - what a pair... of maroons.
I guess you don't mind screwing over young low income workers to pay out benefits to middle and upper class retirees.
leave SocSec alone!!!!
>I'm not the one that needs to change, Haplo9, you do. I know that's going to create a large amount of cognitive dissonance but too damn bad.
(Yep, wisdom wasted.) So.. I should become more like you and Mark? Spend my time creating elaborate theories about why the mean other guy is a bully, saying "well hey, I'm legitimizing craaaa-zyyy by responding to you, so I won't!", all so I can avoid talking about actual issues? Sorry, that strikes me more as a great big rationalization than anything useful. I know! I should try that at work when someone asks me to explain my reasoning. "Hey boss, you're just being a bully. I'm not going to answer your questions." It will work, right?
Seriously guys - how do you "bully" someone in cyberspace? Are my pixels standing over you threateningly?
I don't understand why being asked to explain your reasoning or understanding of something is such a terrible imposition. You want to increase your knowledge, right? You want to seek out errors in your reasoning, right? You want to correct false beliefs that you may hold, right? I do. That is why, when you put forth an assertion, the default response is "explain yourself." An assertion is only as good as the reasoning it rests upon. That you seem to think of it as an onerous thing just makes me think that you haven't actually had to justify your positions to anyone other than yourself and other like thinking people.
>The problem is, guys, that you don't want to have a serious discussion about Social Security.
Talking about the nuts and bolts of Social Security is not a serious conversation Mark? That's exactly what we were doing last time, and that's exactly the conversation you decided you were too good for. Er sorry, you felt you were "managing fantasies" by getting specific as to how Social Security works. Lol.
>You'd rather make a comment like "Social Security is engaging in teenage slave trafficking" or something similarly tinged.
Horseshit. You got your panties in a twist because several of us were saying "well, yeah, Soc Sec is like a Ponzi scheme is several ways." Rather than debate the merits of the proposition, you tried to foreclose discussion by saying such a comparison is out of bounds. We, of course, ignored your attempt to do that, because it is nonsense. Is your comparison of conservatives to fascists out of bounds because history's best known fascists were genocidal, and one just might think you are trying to do a little smearing by association? No. (Though rather hypocritical on your part.)
>I suspect, though, that you don't want it to be fixed because you disagree with its premise to begin with and, like most government programs of this nature, you want it to fail because then you can win the argument.
You're simply making that up because it fits your narrative. Don't you think Mark, in a discussion about Social Security, that it would be wise for both sides to be able to agree on how Social Security works before they move on to talking about how it might be changed? Otherwise, how would they even be able to talk meaningfully about pros and cons? We haven't even gotten to that point - the last thing you said on the subject led me to believe that you don't understand how the trust fund works - what it does and does not represent. As such, how can we meaningfully talk about changing the system? It's like trying to design an engine without knowing anything about how an engine produces power.
If, by chance, you actually want to increase your knowledge and understanding, then here you go: my assertion is that the Soc Sec trust fund represents nothing - no real assets. If it were to disappear tomorrow, it would make no difference as to how Soc Sec is funded. None. If you want, I can trace a dollar through the Soc Sec system and explain why my understanding is thus. You *seem* to have disagreed with that, but you ran away when asked to explain why. There it is again - explain why. Odd that we keep coming back to that, isn't it? It's almost like certain of us think that it's important..
I should become more like you and Mark?
No, what I'm saying is look at your position on Social Security with a critical eye. Try to step outside of yourself and your ideology about government social programs. Weigh the benefits with the costs and make a serious analysis of it free of bias. Look at the facts and be honest.
Any comments I offer in regards to Social Security are irrelevant because of statements like this:
my assertion is that the Soc Sec trust fund represents nothing - no real assets
This is, in essence, why I "ran away." When you begin from this point, there is only one conclusion: YOURS. This conclusions is, essentially, that the government is bad, worthless, evil, blah blah blah. The issue of Social Security is much more complicated than that and I haven't seen any indication from you or some others that you are willing to embrace that complexity. Instead, it's Treasury Bonds-BAD, private sector-Good.
Until you step out of your ideology about the federal government, any discussion is pointless.
Sorry, Mark, but I'm saying that he should become more like me. Haplo-You and the rest of the posters from Kevin's site think that you are 100% correct about your views of government. You *feel* that history has proven this to be so. It hasn't. In fact, it's been the opposite and that's why you behave the way you do. If you starting thinking more like me, you would basically be more flexible. The world changes every day and the one thing that history does conclusively prove is that sticking to one idea as the eons march by you is pretty fucking dumb.
>No, what I'm saying is look at your position on Social Security with a critical eye.
Has it ever occurred to you that the assertion I'm making here comes from doing just that? From first, trying to ensure that I understand exactly how the system works before attempting to suggest changes to it? Probably not. Must be that pathology of yours, eh?
>This is, in essence, why I "ran away." When you begin from this point, there is only one conclusion: YOURS.
Mark. You really have trouble with this notion don't you? My assertion is a TESTABLE assertion, based on facts. Either I have the facts wrong, or I have them right. It doesn't matter how much you dislike the assertion, or how much I may dislike the federal government. Social Security is not some magically conjured creature - it's workings can be readily ascertained by anyone who wants to know. If the facts do not support my assertion, then you should have no trouble pointing out how my reasoning is wrong, and I would need to withdraw the assertion. If you are actually willing to listen, I will explain to you the reasoning behind my assertion. Then, you can identify the flaws in my reasoning. I'm sure it would make you happy to be able to do that, in fact. Instead, you pointlessly speculate about my motivations in order to try to avoid talking about something that (should be) very straightforward. You are simply saying "I don't want to talk about this because I don't like your assertion." I still can't wrap my head around how you can possibly think that putting your fingers in your ears as an adult is somehow different than when a child does it.
I know I'm going to regret this but-Haplo9, can something have tangible value but not be an economic asset?
Santa - kind of depends on what you mean by "economic asset." What would be your definition of it?
Social Security is not some magically conjured creature
Actually, according to this it sort of is that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund#cite_note-13
I would assume that Haplo9 thinks that the Scenario 1 is the truth although the article makes clear that we don't really know. This would jibe with Mark's assertion that the situation is much more complex than it's worth "nothing-no real asset." I guess I don't see how you can test your assertion here.
>Sorry, Mark, but I'm saying that he should become more like me.
Can't say i'm interested in becoming like someone who tries to rationalize their own superiority. It's just kind of embarassing to see when someone does that, you know?
>and the rest of the posters from Kevin's site think that you are 100% correct about your views of government.
Er.. Huh? I have no idea what it means to think you are 100% correct about something. What does 90% correct mean?
>You *feel* that history has proven this to be so.
As opposed to you, who.. what exactly? Oh:
>In fact, it's been the opposite and that's why you behave the way you do.
So.. Do you think you are 100% correct in this assertion? Or do only us crazies over at TSM think in 100% terms?
>If you starting thinking more like me, you would basically be more flexible.
If you mean that I would no longer constrain my thinking by things like logic and reason, then I guess I'd have to agree with you. I would be more flexible! Unfortunately, I'd also no longer be able to practice engineering, but hey. At least I'd be flexible.
>I would assume that Haplo9 thinks that the Scenario 1 is the truth although the article makes clear that we don't really know.
Sort of, though both scenarios have line items that don't make sense to me. For scenario 1:
>2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
Why is raising taxes the only option here? The government must come up with a dollar to fulfill its obligation. It can get that dollar through taxing, borrowing, or printing money.
Similarly in scenario 2:
>2020: Federal government raises taxes by $0, but may borrow from other sources, to repay the loan to Social Security. Any tax increases that occur in 2020 would have happened anyway without Social Security.
Again, why is it important that taxes are or aren't raised to come up with that dollar? I don't understand why that is important here.
Really, my assertion boils down to this:
If the trust fund didn't exist, and the government was not taking in enough money from taxes in order to cover Soc Sec outlays, it would have to raise taxes, borrow money, or print money in order to cover those outlays.
In todays case, the trust fund does exist. In order to cover Soc Sec outlays beyond what it pulls in in taxes, the government has to.. raise taxes, borrow money, or print money in order to cover those outlays. I can't figure out how indirecting through the trust fund makes a bit of difference here. In either case, the government has to come up with the money somehow, and the avenues to do that are well known. If the amount of money the govt has to raise is the same, and the means to do it is the same, what is the purpose of the trust fund?
Thanks for the link Donald. (I typed a comment that seems to have been eaten, so I'll summarize shorter here)
Neither scenario makes sense to me actually, because I don't understand why they are so focused on tax raises. In the second scenario, it says that government doesn't have to raise taxes but has to get money from other sources. I don't understand why that distinction matters.
My assertion boils down to this. Imagine a world in which the trust fund didn't exist. The govt takes in Soc Sec money from taxes, and gives it to beneficiaries. In the event that outlays exceed taxes, the government will have to increase taxes, borrow, or print money in order to make up the difference. Which one it uses seems largely irrelevant to me - each mechanism has tradeoffs.
Now, in the world we do live in, the trust fund does exist. In order to redeem the bonds in that trust fund when tax intake doesn't cover outlays, the government has to do exactly the same thing - cover the outlays by raising taxes, borrowing money, or printing money.
In other words, the government has to do exactly the same thing regardless of whether the trust fund exists or not. If that is the case, then what does the trust fund represent, other than a (nice to know, but not needed) historical record of how much Soc Sec taxes exceeded outlays for many years?
Until you step out of your ideology about the federal government, any discussion is pointless.
Look at the facts and be honest.
Too bad you can't do the latter when you keep lying about what other people say (in the case of the former).
I'm getting the feeling that you do realize you can't make an honest argument - so you lie about what I and haplo actually say. What does that feel like M - to have absolutely no sense of shame?
Why won't you discuss the regressive structure of SS - taxing low income workers to pay middle and upper class retirees? You do realize that is how SS works. Or do you think the magic Trust Fund just shits out money?
The world changes every day and the one thing that history does conclusively prove is that sticking to one idea as the eons march by you is pretty fucking dumb.
Ooooh, that's just too good to let go by.
So liberty is a stupid, out-dated idea? We shouldn't aspire to be as free as possible? Equality before the law isn't important anymore? Who's the fucking dumb one now? You may very well need a keeper, but that is no reason to assume that everyone else in the country does too.
You are right, I don't have the flexibility you do sasquatch - but putting my head up my own ass isn't on my list of life goals. Glad that works out so well for you. See, isn't a good thing I don't have the power to force you into a better view of the world? [Oops, another one of those outdated, stupid ideas.]
Equality before the law? Where the fuck have you been?
I know a guy down at the pool hall who can get you all the healthcare waivers you need.
Great link, Donald, thanks. Since we seem to be having a reasonable discussion (juris' comments about liberty aside) thus far, I will read the link and examine the offered solutions.
Hap, I apologize for your comment being marked as spam. I have no idea why it was but I published it earlier. We seemed to be going on a good run for a while with only the Chinese post in "Defriending Mubarak" popping up on a daily basis in spam. I guess it was too good to be true...ah well...
juris' comments about liberty aside
What? Deriding a fucking 'tard who insists that it is some outdated, passe' idea? You can take that on straight the fuck up any time you want, weasel-boy.
And you want to argue this based on a fucking wiki entry? Not from ANY reputable economist blog (say like references 19 thru 23)? Un fucking believable - except of course it is par for the course here. Oh, and that wiki reference was to TPM - and deleted as unreliable (by wiki standards)! LMFAO
I can point to the SSA website where they discuss the worker-to-beneficiary as a concern. Why is that so M, why? You don't want to admit why, do you?
In looking at the link that Donald provided, what do we think about the three solutions offered? #2 seems like the best choice with taxes raised only on the specific group mentioned.
But the overall mission of the program needs to change. We can't ignore the demographics issue. There should be a measure for people who have high salaries (e.g Warren Buffet) who could voluntarily refuse to take money out and, instead, put it back into the fund. This may already exist-I just don't know about it.
Hap, I think our disagreement boils down to this sentence from the link.
It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population.
I think this may have been what Santa was getting at above although I don't want to necessarily speak for him. It does have value but it appears, Hap, that you don't think it does have value, correct?
We can't ignore the demographics issue.
Well, wonder of wonders.
But WHY do you insist on Buffet voluntarily giving up his claim? Why not just check if he needs it (means-test) and say "no"?
I just don't know about it.
Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real M?
it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population
Ah, it really is you after all. You still aren't getting it.
Hold on.
Are you arguing that the SSA 'trust fund' has value, because a bunch of people have IOUs that say the trust fund owes them money?
And those IOUs require somebody else to pay the money that is owed?
That doesn't sound like a very good investment. To buy those IOUs at face value, I mean.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/currency
When you begin from this point, there is only one conclusion: YOURS. This conclusions is, essentially, that the government is bad, worthless, evil, blah blah blah. The issue of Social Security is much more complicated than that and I haven't seen any indication from you or some others that you are willing to embrace that complexity. Instead, it's Treasury Bonds-BAD, private sector-Good.
Until you step out of your ideology about the federal government, any discussion is pointless.
So what you're saying is that "any discussion is pointless" until either I 1) decide that the facts that the financial mechanism of SS and a Ponzi scheme are identical and that SS was deceptive from day one don't exist, regardless of a complete lack of evidence from you suggesting anything else, or 2) decide that those facts actually don't matter, even in the absence of any explanation why they don't matter, right?
Has it occurred to you that you could actually address those questions, rather than just dismissing an opposing view because those who hold it fail to "just believe" without any supporting evidence?
Until you step out of your ideology about the federal government, any discussion is pointless.
Nice of you to point this out.
If anyone in the private sector used the same financial mechanism as SS, they would be arrested for running a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scam.
Do you have any reason for automatically assuming SS="good" other than the fact that it's the government doing it?
And we're back to the "just answer the questions" BS. He has. A MILLION times in million different ways.
More childish dishonesty as well. I refuse as well to engage psychotic drivel. Ah, well, we had a good thing going there for awhile...
Nice try Santa. You all think social security is fine becuase the government runs it and it hasn't collapsed yet. You refuse to engage in any drivel because you don't every type much of anything on here.
Someone who self identifies as Santa surely does know something about psychotic drivel.
Agreed, Santa. We're back to the baiting, hyperbole, and games again. I'll be around (obviously) if you guys want to change.
So M my asking about why you think Buffett should voluntarily give up his SS bennies - which is that: baiting, hyperbole or games?
I guess having a discussion about means-testing to take those who don't need SS off the rolls is out-of-bounds too, eh? I'm okay with that concept, but you don't seem to be.
Sorry for being snarky about you actually saying "I don't know" - it is something to be encouraged when it applies.
I see. Any disagreement with you is "childish dishonesty", just because you say so.
On the other hand, since agreement with you constitutes believing in Santa and Sasquatch, I honestly can't feel too bad about it.
Okay, so...
It doesn't matter if it's a crime if anyone else does it, if the government does it, it's a good thing.
And you, Mr. Teacher, decline to explain why in a manner that makes sense to someone who doesn't already agree with you. And in fact, you require someone to agree with you in advance before you'll even bother to make the attempt.
Very enlightening. Very enlightening indeed.
Funny how "distortions" from Bachmann are front page news to you, but flat-out, deliberate lies from President Obama rate nothing but a yawn.
Saying that the founding fathers fought hard to end slavery is not a distortion but a complete lie, although not deliberate due to idiocy.
Her wording is wrong. If she had said "some" of the Founding Fathers, it would be accurate.
Saying that the founding fathers fought hard to end slavery is not a distortion but a complete lie, although not deliberate due to idiocy.
Leaving aside the documented fact that some of them did indeed fight hard to end slavery (which suggests that you don't actually care what the truth is in the first place), the fact remains:
When a Congresswoman who is considered loopy by half her own party distorts the truth, or even lies outright, you guys consider it front page news... as long as she's of the opposing party. But the deliberate, calculated lies of The President, the Senate Majority Leader or the Speaker of the House aren't noteworthy as long as they are of your party.
Apparently this qualifies as "honesty" in liberal Democrat world. It's not surprising from politicians. It's sad coming from the average voter, since it declares the entire concept of honesty to be nothing but a useful deception on your part.
I'd believe the concern with Bachmann if there was roughly equal concern expressed about Kucinich (who is both smarter and nuttier).
However, unlike Bachmann - where no commenter here has ever expressed support - there have been commenters who believe in the brand of crazy promoted by Kucinich.
Of course that doesn't reflect a certain bias towards the Democrats - it is just a coincidence.
I think Dennis Kucinich is a fruit ball and shouldn't be placed in charge of anything. His view of global politics is so naive that he'd be a worse president than George W Bush which says quite a lot considering how awful he turned out to be. Another lunatic in the Democratic party is Hank Johnson who thinks islands can tip upside down. As I have said previously on this site, no one in the Democratic party takes them seriously.
Yet people in the GOP take Michele Bachmann very seriously and she has a huge amount of support both politically and financially. I think this speaks volumes about both parties. If either Kucinich or Johnson had the same amount of power as Bachmann does right now, I'd be fucking pissed and likely no longer a Democrat.
And yet when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stonewalled ethics investigations to cover the crimes of her colleagues, you were silent.
You bitched and moaned about "outside groups and anonymous donations", but when you were informed that the Obama campaign had deliberately disabled credit card security measures so that donors could not be traced, "anonymous donations" to his campaign got complete silence from you.
Not just the Democrat Party, either. You personally.
And you wonder why people doubt your sincerity.
I'm voting for the Herman Cain / Gene Simmons ticket.
Man, that would rock...
Anonymous, did you intend your posts regarding the president and Nancy Pelosi "lying" to be factual statements? I notice no sources to back any of your assertions up. I'll provide one that likely explains your dishonesty, however.
http://www.liberalfix.com/2011/04/well-over-90-percent-of-republicans-are.html
So, nice Rove. And remember, in responding to this link, no genetic fallacies please:)
Ah, Serial...you've engaged one of them. Bad move, dude or dudette. I do like the link, though.
Yeah, Serial, you dumbass. You fucked up. You're supposed to do like Mark does: throw a baggy full of shit and run away. If you engage, you run the risk of looking as foolish as Mark has in the past when he made the mistake of trying to back up ridiculous assertions. So in the future, just throw the baggy of shit and run like a teenage boy out after his bedtime.
What are you, MacFly, chicken?!!?
Post a Comment