PDA

View Full Version : Republicans admit private accounts are about ideology not solvency...


Pages : [1] 2

jAZ
02-13-2005, 11:22 PM
This is a facinating look into the hocus pocus of the Bush/Rove machine. Rove's main man Peter Wehner (Bush's Dir of Strategic Iniatives) admits explicitly that...

"We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability -- as we believe it should be --then Personal Retirements Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task.

... and they also acknowledge that the push for Private accounts is about political power...

Increasingly the Democrat Party is the party of
obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past.

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one
we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political
and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our
grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving
greater power and responsibility to individuals.

The real problem with solvency (aside from borrowing from the trust fund), is "wage indexing"... not the structure of SS itself... that's purely and ideological battle. Not a fiscal battle.
You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who
prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to
adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address this
fundamental structural problem. In my judgment, that's a bad idea.
We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal
Retirement Accounts alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and
sustainability -- as we believe it should be --then Personal
Retirements Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to
that task. And playing "kick the can" is simply not the credo of
this President. He wants to do what needs to be done for genuine
repair of Social Security.

If we duck our duty, it can have serious short-term economic
consequences. Here's why. If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover
transition costs for personal savings accounts and make no changes
to wage indexing, we will have borrowed trillions and will still
confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could
easily cause an economic chain-reaction: the markets go south,
interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out. To ignore the
structural fiscal issues -- to wholly ignore the matter of the
current system's benefit formula -- would be irresponsible.



Amazing little view into the world of the Republican political machine that operates behind the curtain and people here regularly declare doesn't exist without printed proof.

Well here's a little proof.

All of our discussion of the battle over SS vs privatization and the merits of both philosphies for sustainability... is utterly pointless. Because fiscal sustainability has little to do with private accounts. That's almost entirely about ideology and political control.

The full memo...
http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/023456.html

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2005, 11:28 PM
Personal responsibility = life. BIG BROTHER dependence = Socialism for morons.

jAZ
02-13-2005, 11:40 PM
Personal responsibility = life. BIG BROTHER dependence = Socialism for morons.
Hiding ideological and political maneuvering under the cloak scare tactics = BushCo.

jAZ
02-14-2005, 12:03 AM
This thread will end with shortly with the sound of crickets, I bet.

BigMeatballDave
02-14-2005, 12:06 AM
This thread will end with shortly with the sound of crickets, I bet.Who gives a shit. The point is I want control of MY money and MY future. I no longer wish to pay for other people's retirement...

jAZ
02-14-2005, 12:12 AM
Who gives a shit. The point is I want control of MY money and MY future. I no longer wish to pay for other people's retirement...
Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology. But Republicans don't want to have an honest debate on the ideology... they must feel that they can't win on those grounds.

So they are trying to scare people with the bait and switch.

Bait = insolvent future of SS
Switch = the only soultion is Private accounts

When the reality is private accounts admittedly DON'T solve the problem of solvency.

So the real question of solvency... is about wage indexing (or benefit cuts), regardless of the structure of the program.

BigMeatballDave
02-14-2005, 12:56 AM
Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology. But Republicans don't want to have an honest debate on the ideology... they must feel that they can't win on those grounds.

So they are trying to scare people with the bait and switch.

Bait = insolvent future of SS
Switch = the only soultion is Private accounts

When the reality is private accounts admittedly DON'T solve the problem of solvency.

So the real question of solvency... is about wage indexing (or benefit cuts), regardless of the structure of the program.Like I said. I don't care about any of that. I just want to control my own finances...

Saggysack
02-14-2005, 01:28 AM
Like I said. I don't care about any of that. I just want to control my own finances...


Bahrain and Qatar would suit your needs perfectly. From what I hear your finances, are indeed that, your finances. You have complete control.

So when you going?

|Zach|
02-14-2005, 01:41 AM
Bahrain and Qatar would suit your needs perfectly. From what I hear your finances, are indeed that, your finances. You have complete control.

So when you going?
ROFL

Pants
02-14-2005, 02:34 AM
Bahrain and Qatar would suit your needs perfectly. From what I hear your finances, are indeed that, your finances. You have complete control.

So when you going?

I saw a bumper sticker that said "If you want to live in a country run by religion, go to Pakistan." Heh.

[I think it was Pakistan, might have been something else]

Taco John
02-14-2005, 02:53 AM
The thing that I don't like about the accounts as they are is that even if you have the money, you're not going to get any more of it than if you were on social security.

Oh well... At least the foot is in the door. I agree with the ideology, just not the proposed application. This lump of clay will need to be molded over decades.

KCWolfman
02-14-2005, 06:29 AM
How much is too much? Who cares about solvency. The Dems created a system of a 2% taxation to fund for retirement before the advent of socially moving events like company wide 401ks on a phenom basis in the US. That taxation has risen 600% for no good reason. Drop it back down to 2-4% and let us fund our own retirement with the remainder. Anything less is plain theft.

KCWolfman
02-14-2005, 06:31 AM
Bahrain and Qatar would suit your needs perfectly. From what I hear your finances, are indeed that, your finances. You have complete control.

So when you going?
Yeah, thank goodness we live in a nation where the government can think for us and invest our hard earned dollars as they see fit so they can dole out an exponentially smaller amount in our retirement.

There's some quality planning!

KCFalcon59
02-14-2005, 08:47 AM
Hiding ideological and political maneuvering under the cloak scare tactics = BushCo.

This is exactly what the dems do. They have been using this playbook for generations. Crying about it when your side invented it is sad. Though I would have to argue that your perception of the Bush Adm is a figment of your imagination.

KCTitus
02-14-2005, 08:57 AM
Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology.

It's about both, actually. SS and all the other dependency programs are failed ideas that have begun to bankrupt the nation. It's time to sack up and hold grown people responsible for their own lives and move forward.

The only people using scare tactics are jaz and the left...Ive never heard more 'boogeyman' nonsense in all my life.

SS is toast, there's not point at this time in arguing whether or not the program 'can work'--we know it wont.

Cochise
02-14-2005, 09:18 AM
Who gives a shit what it's about? It results in my money not getting confiscated by big brother for a bankrupt, worthless program.

Iowanian
02-14-2005, 09:46 AM
I don't see how the Jazzocraps can't get the simple concept through their heads.

SS was created at a time when Far more workers were putting into a system, where alot less people were using(depending) on the system. It was never meant to be a Retirement account. Now, with People living longer lives, more young people sponging off the system, and less workers, with the impending retirement of the baby boomers..........the system CANNOT hold up.

The system will have to account for those incapable of making decisions on their own, or the democrats who don't think their constituents are capable of making decisions.

I feel I'm capable, and I'd much prefer that a portion of my SS go into a personal account where It can actually grow, and come back to my family eventually. I earned it, I should get it.

Soupnazi
02-14-2005, 09:49 AM
Hiding ideological and political maneuvering under the cloak scare tactics = BushCo.

While forcing citizens to become dependent on social programs and welfare programs (i.e. the federal government) is the mantra of the DNC. As long as the citizens are dependent upon it, the beast can never be starved and the status quo will remain.

Those puny little quotes hardly prove that this is all about ideology and politics any more for Bush than for the Dems. Your supposition about the problem not being "the structure" of SS but "wage indexing" instead is rediculous.

The structure is precisely the problem with the system. What 40 people used to fund is now 2.5 people. It will eventually by 0.7 people. You don't see that as a problem? The degree to which you've been allowed to let your favorite liberal lackeys guide you on this issue is pathetic.

I guess by your definition, my IRA's and taxable brokerage accounts aren't "solvent" either.

Soupnazi
02-14-2005, 09:54 AM
You can always tell when the Dem's are defeated in the realm of public opinion when they have to resort to the retarded "this is about politics, he's trying to trick you, blah blah blah" nonsense they so frequently used.

The DNC never thought the day would come where the general public would actually own a piece of the stock market. Now that most people do, they see that their private method of saving and investing is better than what the government program can give them.

How dare some of us see that we're paying huge sums of money to repair a '75 Pinto!!! I want out, and thank you, GWB for having the balls to go after it.

Saggysack
02-14-2005, 10:03 AM
Yeah, thank goodness we live in a nation where the government can think for us and invest our hard earned dollars as they see fit so they can dole out an exponentially smaller amount in our retirement.

There's some quality planning!

Damn the Govt. for that K-Mart stock they bought you with your money. Damn them! Damn them all the way to hell.

RINGLEADER
02-14-2005, 10:28 AM
All of our discussion of the battle over SS vs privatization and the merits of both philosphies for sustainability... is utterly pointless. Because fiscal sustainability has little to do with private accounts. That's almost entirely about ideology and political control.

The full memo...
http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/023456.html


:shrug:

There's nothing new or surprising in this...as we discussed on the other thread social security simply can't function in its present form. It's broken. The best outcome for social security is a system that pays out what it takes in and is augmented with private accounts that earn more than the social security system does.

You like to bemoan private social security accounts (that you claimed you were for last year) Jaz, but you still avoid the issues surrounding how we're going to keep the system going after 2018. If you think rising taxes is the solution then great. But tell me how raising taxes FIXES the problem. I'm not against raising the cap on taxable wages from the current level to help fund the transition costs. And there are other factors that can be played with such as the COLA and retirement adjustments. But if you don't fundamentally change the system it is going to become a tremendous drag on the economy (something that far outstrips whatever return Dems think they can get from reversing tax cuts) and/or result in lower benefits. Why not let Americans get a better return for some of their social security, keep the current system going as it was intended (as a pay-in, pay-out program that doesn't have to borrow trillions to keep going)? Where's the downside to letting social security continue to function as it was originally designed and augment it with private accounts? I would bet that when you run the numbers, even on the most conservative investments, you'd find that this kind of plan eclipses the $954 a month that social security pays out on average. Why be against that?

RINGLEADER
02-14-2005, 10:31 AM
Hiding ideological and political maneuvering under the cloak scare tactics = BushCo.

Sheesh. I couldn't get to the third post in this thread without your conspiracy theories winning the day. It must suck to hate the president so much that you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

RINGLEADER
02-14-2005, 10:45 AM
Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology. But Republicans don't want to have an honest debate on the ideology... they must feel that they can't win on those grounds.

So they are trying to scare people with the bait and switch.

Bait = insolvent future of SS
Switch = the only soultion is Private accounts

When the reality is private accounts admittedly DON'T solve the problem of solvency.

So the real question of solvency... is about wage indexing (or benefit cuts), regardless of the structure of the program.


Well, if you'd listen to what the president actually says you'd realize that your conclusions are based on a flawed premise:

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Sen. John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. <B><U>All these ideas are on the table.</U></B>

Doesn't sound much like he's saying, as you claim, that "the only solution is private accounts".

<B><U>We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. </U></B>We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

Once again, the president doesn't sound like he's advocating anything close to what you claim he is. Kind of blows a big gaping hole in your definition of what "bait and switch" means vis-a-vis this issue.

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. <B><U>And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.</U></B> Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future. Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and <B><U>your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security</U></B>. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

Bush doesn't say what you're claiming he says Jaz. He sees private accounts as something that will augment the existing social security check, not replace them as you claim. It's simply a fact that you're misrepresenting what Bush wants to see happen and it's simply a fact that your conclusions are based on those same misrepresentations.

I know you hate the guy and want to belive he's saying something different than what he's saying, but you cannot point to any quote in which Bush says private accounts is the only way to fix social security or that he wants to replace social security with private accounts. Like your claims on the other thread where you said social security impacts the wealthy more than the poor, or your claim that the pictures of Kerry in a bunny suit were faked or your claim that the contents of the forged CBS memos was real you're just wrong.

Go ahead and read what Bush really thinks about this issue and let me know where he is wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript.3/index.html

htismaqe
02-14-2005, 11:39 AM
Damn the Govt. for that K-Mart stock they bought you with your money. Damn them! Damn them all the way to hell.

Somebody spouts off without doing any research...

beavis
02-14-2005, 11:46 AM
This thread will end with shortly with the sound of crickets, I bet.
Looks like you were dead on with everything in this thread.

BigMeatballDave
02-14-2005, 12:07 PM
Who gives a shit what it's about? It results in my money not getting confiscated by big brother for a bankrupt, worthless program.Exactly. But, some people around here don't get it, and make jokes about it...
:shake: :rolleyes:

jAZ
02-14-2005, 12:42 PM
Well, if you'd listen to what the president actually says you'd realize that your conclusions are based on a flawed premise:



Doesn't sound much like he's saying, as you claim, that "the only solution is private accounts".



Once again, the president doesn't sound like he's advocating anything close to what you claim he is. Kind of blows a big gaping hole in your definition of what "bait and switch" means vis-a-vis this issue.



Bush doesn't say what you're claiming he says Jaz. He sees private accounts as something that will augment the existing social security check, not replace them as you claim. It's simply a fact that you're misrepresenting what Bush wants to see happen and it's simply a fact that your conclusions are based on those same misrepresentations.

I know you hate the guy and want to belive he's saying something different than what he's saying, but you cannot point to any quote in which Bush says private accounts is the only way to fix social security or that he wants to replace social security with private accounts. Like your claims on the other thread where you said social security impacts the wealthy more than the poor, or your claim that the pictures of Kerry in a bunny suit were faked or your claim that the contents of the forged CBS memos was real you're just wrong.

Go ahead and read what Bush really thinks about this issue and let me know where he is wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript.3/index.html
All that mess over the word "only".

You can substitute "best" if you prefer, and move on to the explaining how Private Accounts solve the problem of solvency.

Of course, you will be making the opposite case that the Bush Administration is making behind closed doors to their Republican friends.

But I'll happily read your argument.

Brock
02-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Now Democrats should just admit it's about idealogy as well. It's all about US taking care of you.

jAZ
02-14-2005, 12:59 PM
Exactly. But, some people around here don't get it, and make jokes about it...
:shake: :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure I get it.

That's the point of the thread. Private Accounts is about ideology. You admit that.

It's a very reasonable debate to have (which ideology is better). But to try to offer Private Accounts as a solution to the problem of solvency is (now publicly admitted) total BS.

Now that BushCo has inadvertantly cleared that mess out of the way for us, our priorities should be:

1) Face and fix the solvency problem immediately (benefit cuts, indexing recalculations, whatever).
2) Add optional (additional dollar) private accounts to encourage added retirement savings
3) Balance the budget
4) Discuss/debate the merits of phasing out SS and replacing with Private Accounts.

jAZ
02-14-2005, 01:06 PM
Now Democrats should just admit it's about idealogy as well. It's all about US taking care of you.
Keeping SS is certainly about ideology on the part of the Democrats. No doubt.

You characterization of what that ideology represents is bogus, but you knew that.

Donger
02-14-2005, 01:07 PM
That's the point of the thread. Private Accounts is about ideology. You admit that.

I'm not sure that it's as black-and-white as you are trying to make it out to be. I've not seen or heard one Republican say that private accounts will, by themselves, make SS solvent.

Have you?

Donger
02-14-2005, 01:09 PM
Keeping SS is certainly about ideology on the part of the Democrats. No doubt.

You characterization of what that ideology represents is bogus, but you knew that.

Out of curiousity, why do you think that the Democrats are so resistant to making changes to SS? What vested interest do you think they have in it that makes them so opposed to the introduction of limited private accounts?

Brock
02-14-2005, 01:12 PM
Keeping SS is certainly about ideology on the part of the Democrats. No doubt.

You characterization of what that ideology represents is bogus, but you knew that.

No. You are wrong, but that is nothing new. You like the big ol' government taking care of little ol' us, probably because you aren't able to take care of your own money. I realize this concept is scary for the likes of you.

Cochise
02-14-2005, 01:16 PM
What on the political landscape isn't about ideology?

Some people think the government knows better than you what to do with your money. Some think the government should force you to save for retirement. Others think the government was never meant to be some sort of financial diaper they force people to wear. It's two different ideologies like any other matter.

This is no stupider of a statement than the 'you can't legislate morality'. Every thing is morality and everything is ideology - the only question is whose ideology/morality is being legislated.

penguinz
02-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I would respond but I doubt the target of my response would read it before creating their illogical response.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2005, 01:22 PM
I would respond but I doubt the target of my response would read it before creating their illogical response.


Words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words, words.

2bikemike
02-14-2005, 07:13 PM
Well I for one don't give a shit about keeping SS solvent. I want the system to end. I already feel like I have to take care of my retirement myself so let me invest the money SS takes.

KCWolfman
02-14-2005, 07:20 PM
Damn the Govt. for that K-Mart stock they bought you with your money. Damn them! Damn them all the way to hell.
Actually, the government invested in T-Bills. I bought K-Mart stock around 15 and sold at 120. Had the government allowed me to do that with my true retirement funds then I would have been able to retire a couple of years earlier - as it is, they needed it for something else without my permission. Probably some lazy assed illegal immigrant or 65 year old who spent his money on the riverboats instead of investing it in a 401k.

2bikemike
02-14-2005, 07:21 PM
Actually, the government invested in T-Bills. I bought K-Mart stock around 15 and sold at 120. Had the government allowed me to do that with my true retirement funds then I would have been able to retire a couple of years earlier - as it is, they needed it for something else without my permission.

that ought to leave a mark!

jAZ
02-14-2005, 10:38 PM
Well I for one don't give a shit about keeping SS solvent. I want the system to end. I already feel like I have to take care of my retirement myself so let me invest the money SS takes.
You might have missed where BushCo admits that Private Accounts won't be solvent either unless they make the same changes they would need to make SS Solvent.

In otherwords, SS isn't flawed unless private accounts are also flawed.

Bummer.

jAZ
02-14-2005, 10:42 PM
What on the political landscape isn't about ideology?
Well, the solvency of SS or Private Accounts isn't about ideology. That's about fiscal management.

But I'm sure that's too obvious for you to consider.

Taco John
02-15-2005, 12:06 AM
What's wrong with the ideology of privitization, especially if you already admit that they are both flawed? Fix the ideology and put me in control of my money... THEN worry about the solvency.

Gotta put one foot in front of the other.

SNR
02-15-2005, 12:59 AM
What's bad about privatization? Do you have a job, Jaz? Do you know basic finance management? What do you have to worry about?

Ari Chi3fs
02-15-2005, 02:57 AM
i have put several thousand dollars into SS and most likely wont recieve a dime. A flawed system. Fugg it. I want control over my money, bitches.

KCWolfman
02-15-2005, 06:13 AM
You might have missed where BushCo admits that Private Accounts won't be solvent either unless they make the same changes they would need to make SS Solvent.

In otherwords, SS isn't flawed unless private accounts are also flawed.

Bummer.
The Highways are flawed, perhaps the government can drive us to work to limit accidents too?

jAZ
02-15-2005, 08:04 AM
The Highways are flawed, perhaps the government can drive us to work to limit accidents too?
The justification for keeping SS has nothing to do with it's long-term viability. Just as the justification for phasing it out has nothing to do with it's long term viability.

If Republicans hadn't conflated the two totally unrelated issues, we could be talking about the real issues.

1) What actually needs to change regardless of the system in place to keep any retirement system solvent over the long term (ie, indexing, borrowing, etc).

2) What are the merits of keeping SS vs phasing it out in favor of private accounts.


They are two SEPERATE discussions that are not linked, except for political expediancy.

People here have been duped into linking them, and now that they are faced with the reality that they are seperate, it's hard to give up the ghost. To those that have (and have moved on to argument #2), I commend you.

jAZ
02-15-2005, 08:09 AM
What's wrong with the ideology of privitization, especially if you already admit that they are both flawed? Fix the ideology and put me in control of my money... THEN worry about the solvency.

Gotta put one foot in front of the other.
Do you also go out and drop $1000 for a new set of spinners everytime the once you realize you have a fuel line leak?

Fix the leak first. Then move on the making it look pretty.

People generally agree on the issue of solvency. It's clear what to fix, and only minimally debatable as to how to approach it.

The battle over ideology is not generally agreed upon. Not in the least.

KCTitus
02-15-2005, 08:26 AM
Do you also go out and drop $1000 for a new set of spinners everytime the once you realize you have a fuel line leak?

Fix the leak first. Then move on the making it look pretty.

People generally agree on the issue of solvency. It's clear what to fix, and only minimally debatable as to how to approach it.

The battle over ideology is not generally agreed upon. Not in the least.

What a sad pathetic analogy. SS is bankrupt and cannot be 'fixed'...that's not even worth debating.

jAZ
02-15-2005, 08:40 AM
What a sad pathetic analogy. SS is bankrupt and cannot be 'fixed'...that's not even worth debating.
Which is more sad? My analogy, or the piles of misinformation you cling to that lead to such a completely uninformed statement?

KCTitus
02-15-2005, 08:42 AM
Which is more sad? My analogy, or the piles of misinformation you cling to that lead to such a completely uninformed statement?

Sorry, Jaz, I dont need piles of anything--especially the stuff you're shoveling--I prefer that stuff in the garden and not on the living room floor.

The problem is you cannot convince me otherwise because I can add. I know that's probably not taught in public schools today, but they did it back in 'my' day.

Taco John
02-15-2005, 11:56 AM
Jaz... It *was* a terrible analogy... You're acting like a little kid about it too...

A better analogy would be asking if I go out and buy a new set of wheels if the tires are leaky. And the answer is, I might, especially if I thought it would prevent all four of my tires from blowing out at once down the road.

SBK
02-15-2005, 07:53 PM
[QUOTE=jAZ]Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology. But Republicans don't want to have an honest debate on the ideology... they must feel that they can't win on those grounds. [QUOTE]

Democrats want to debate honestly on ideology. They can win too. Ask Kerry when they paraded him around with all of his "secret" plans, and "I'll tell you what I'll do after Im elected."

Im starting to think you are a conservative that loves to get the rest of us rialed up. There's no friggin way you actually believe 1% of the crap you post on here. ROFL

SBK
02-15-2005, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE=jAZ]Keeping SS is certainly about ideology on the part of the Democrats. No doubt.[QUOTE]

No kidding. In 08 if Bush's SS plan goes thru before then, what will the dems campaign on? That "He's gonna take away your SS check, so vote for me" card they have been playing forever will be gone. ROFL

KCWolfman
02-15-2005, 09:24 PM
Which is more sad? My analogy, or the piles of misinformation you cling to that lead to such a completely uninformed statement?
2% - 12%.

This was not a single increase in taxation, it happened almost 10 separate times - and only once due to the issue that you currently cry about.

One does not continually increase taxation on something for 60 years if it is fiscally sound. And one does not blame a single party over 8 years for 60 years worth of increases.

Your original post on this topic was something to the effect of "I am not against privatization, but GWB is lying". It is too bad that you are obviously lying just as much.

jAZ
02-15-2005, 11:08 PM
Jaz... It *was* a terrible analogy... You're acting like a little kid about it too...

A better analogy would be asking if I go out and buy a new set of wheels if the tires are leaky. And the answer is, I might, especially if I thought it would prevent all four of my tires from blowing out at once down the road.
It was a fine analogy, but your's will work as well. Only you have to change it slightly.

You have a leaky set of tires. You are faced with 4 solutions.

1) Keep your existing tires and hope you make it to work.
2) Buy a different set of tires but they just as much as your existing tires.
3) Buy a patch kit to fix the existing tires.
4) Buy a different set of tires that leak as well, but also buy the patch kit for the new tires.

Choices 1 and 2 are just plain stupid.

Choice 3 and 4 are debatable, and really it is up to you and your preferences on tires.

Same with SS/PA.

Any discussion of PA without fixing the solvency is pointless. Given that the issue of solvency isn't fixed by switching to PA's, any discussion of SS's future solvency is irrelevant when discussing PA's.

The issue of switching to PA's vs keeping SS should be debated on merits of the two programs. It can't be (rationally) debated on scare tactics about solvency of one program or the other.

To keep bringing up crap about SS being bankrupt, broken, or insolvent is bogus. If you want to talk about those issues, then you aren't debating the structure of the system (SS vs PA), but the underlying funding and payout mechanisms (indexing, borrowing, etc).

Anyone who continues to link SS and insolvency are showing political stripes and nothing more.

jAZ
02-15-2005, 11:10 PM
... lying just as much.
I'm glad to see you admit that Bush is "lying".

Kindly show where I am lying... since you chose to put your words in my mouth rather than quote my lies directly.

KCWolfman
02-15-2005, 11:14 PM
I'm glad to see you admit that Bush is "lying".

Kindly show where I am lying... since you chose to put your words in my mouth rather than quote my lies directly.
I'm a fan of the idea of providing private accounts along side SS

Obviously you are not a fan of it at all. Never once over the last week have I read a single quote from you supporting providing private accounts - unless you mean from the employers end only, which is simply a lie by omission.

And your "poor little me" routine about "putting words in my mouth" and "twisting words" is really old hat. You need to get another schtick. You are worse than Andy Kauffman using the same routine for six or seven years.

Iowanian
02-15-2005, 11:14 PM
How many operations until the change is complete jaz'n?

jAZ
02-15-2005, 11:33 PM
Obviously you are not a fan of it at all. Never once over the last week have I read a single quote from you supporting providing private accounts - unless you mean from the employers end only, which is simply a lie by omission.
You read what you want to read. Instead, read what I wrote.

"I'm a fan of the idea of providing private accounts along side SS"

The republicans are proposing defunding SS by (currently proposed 4%) and directing it away from SS. That's something I object to. I am a fan of the idea of keeping SS intact, fully funded and solvent (by re-indexing, stopping congressional borrowing, etc) and along side SS, creating private accounts that give any person universal access to a 401K type savings plan (no matter whether your employer sponsors one or not).

That's the system I support. That's what I said in that quote.

Here's where I explained my feelings at length.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2271720&postcount=43

Oddly enough, your name is all over that thread too. Does that mean you lied about not seeing any quote from me supporting Private Accounts?

jAZ
02-15-2005, 11:34 PM
And your "poor little me" routine about "putting words in my mouth" and "twisting words" is really old hat. You need to get another schtick. You are worse than Andy Kauffman using the same routine for six or seven years.
You guys quit doing it, I'll quit pointing it out.

KCWolfman
02-15-2005, 11:35 PM
You read what you want to read. Instead, read what I wrote.

"I'm a fan of the idea of providing private accounts along side SS"

The republicans are proposing defunding SS by (currently proposed 4%) and directing it away from SS. That's something I object to. I am a fan of the idea of keeping SS intact, fully funded and solvent (by re-indexing, stopping congressional borrowing, etc) and along side SS, creating private accounts that give any person universal access to a 401K type savings plan (no matter whether your employer sponsors one or not).

That's the system I support. That's what I said in that quote.

Here's where I explained my feelings at length.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2271720&postcount=43

Oddly enough, your name is all over that thread too. Does that mean you lied about not seeing any quote from me supporting Private Accounts?

As I stated, a lie by omission. You support 12% of my check given to welfare and then support additional moneys funded to my retirement program. The fact that you allude to the idea that you are moderate in any form is a lie in itself as well.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 08:35 AM
As I stated, a lie by omission. You support 12% of my check given to welfare and then support additional moneys funded to my retirement program. The fact that you allude to the idea that you are moderate in any form is a lie in itself as well.
WTF are you making up now?

What omission? Omission of what? Or did I not say "along side SS"? Maybe I didn't say that... maybe I omitted that. Maybe I didn't post a 500 word explanation on a thread that you read and posted.

And WTF do you mean "as you stated"? Since your EXACT WORDS WERE "unless you mean from the employers end only, which is simply a lie by omission". I'm pretty sure I said "no matter whether your employer sponsors one or not".

The character-flaw police are on patrol, and they've got a live one under the gun.

KCTitus
02-16-2005, 09:55 AM
You read what you want to read. Instead, read what I wrote.

"I'm a fan of the idea of providing private accounts along side SS"

The republicans are proposing defunding SS by (currently proposed 4%) and directing it away from SS. That's something I object to. I am a fan of the idea of keeping SS intact, fully funded and solvent (by re-indexing, stopping congressional borrowing, etc) and along side SS, creating private accounts that give any person universal access to a 401K type savings plan (no matter whether your employer sponsors one or not).

That's the system I support. That's what I said in that quote.


What you're proposing is another 'tax' that gives people their money back to invest in a personal acount. It's a shell game and still doesnt solve the SS problem. You keep saying that SS isnt broken or insolvent--while that's 'kind of' true today, it wont be in a few years.

SS cannot exist in it's current form in the future. Denying this is showing one's political stripe and nothing else.

I realize that this is THE battle...demonstrating to people that they will have a better situation w/o the government effectively ends the great society programs and the dems philosophy in one large swipe...this results in the 'sky is falling' numerous threads from you.

RedNFeisty
02-16-2005, 10:03 AM
One of the biggest jokes I have heard of. Yeah, lets give the gov't the power to invest our money.

Who is the highest bidder for this money to be invested in their company?

KCTitus
02-16-2005, 10:09 AM
One of the biggest jokes I have heard of. Yeah, lets give the gov't the power to invest our money.

Who is the highest bidder for this money to be invested in their company?

Not sure I follow your post, but the term 'private' would indicate you would decide where to invest the money but the govt would have some parameters so you didnt piss it away.

beavis
02-16-2005, 10:09 AM
One of the biggest jokes I have heard of. Yeah, lets give the gov't the power to invest our money.

Who is the highest bidder for this money to be invested in their company?
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 12:39 PM
All that mess over the word "only".

You can substitute "best" if you prefer, and move on to the explaining how Private Accounts solve the problem of solvency.

Of course, you will be making the opposite case that the Bush Administration is making behind closed doors to their Republican friends.

But I'll happily read your argument.


Jaz: Bush wants to phase out social security.
Bush: Private accounts will supplement social security payouts.
Jaz: But Bush is telling his Republican friends behind closed doors that he is going to phase it out.

How, exactly, do you know this Jaz? Or is this another 'Fake, but accurate' claim like you were making with the CBS memos?

RedNFeisty
02-16-2005, 01:21 PM
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Who are you? What the hell are you doing personally attacking me?

The investors are not going to be the american people.

KCTitus
02-16-2005, 01:27 PM
Who are you? What the hell are you doing personally attacking me?

The investors are not going to be the american people.

So when they call it private accounts and they say I will be able to divert 4% of what would have been taken from FICA to my own investment, it's not me that's going to do it?

Explain please.

SBK
02-16-2005, 01:33 PM
Who are you? What the hell are you doing personally attacking me?

The investors are not going to be the american people.

Ever seen Billy Madison?

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 01:36 PM
WTF are you making up now?

What omission? Omission of what? Or did I not say "along side SS"? Maybe I didn't say that... maybe I omitted that. Maybe I didn't post a 500 word explanation on a thread that you read and posted.

And WTF do you mean "as you stated"? Since your EXACT WORDS WERE "unless you mean from the employers end only, which is simply a lie by omission". I'm pretty sure I said "no matter whether your employer sponsors one or not".

The character-flaw police are on patrol, and they've got a live one under the gun.


Blah, blah, blah...

Whine, whine, whine...

Blah, blah, blah...

Cochise
02-16-2005, 01:40 PM
So when they call it private accounts and they say I will be able to divert 4% of what would have been taken from FICA to my own investment, it's not me that's going to do it?

Explain please.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how me controlling how some money that I earned through work is invested and receiving the proceeds thereof doesn't equate to me being the investor.

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 01:47 PM
What you're proposing is another 'tax' that gives people their money back to invest in a personal acount. It's a shell game and still doesnt solve the SS problem. You keep saying that SS isnt broken or insolvent--while that's 'kind of' true today, it wont be in a few years.

SS cannot exist in it's current form in the future. Denying this is showing one's political stripe and nothing else.

I realize that this is THE battle...demonstrating to people that they will have a better situation w/o the government effectively ends the great society programs and the dems philosophy in one large swipe...this results in the 'sky is falling' numerous threads from you.


Has Jaz ever worked? Because if he had he'd have received his social security statement that says on the front that the system fails in 2042. Social security actually becomes insolvent in 15 years unless you want to pretend that the trillions of additional dollars the government will have to print to pay back the IOUs don't really count.

To recap:

Jaz claims Bush's plan eliminates social security. He can't point to any quote, statement or policy paper to support that claim but did say that is what Bush tells his Republican friends behind close doors (no evidence to back that conclusion up either);

Jaz claims that social security is really more like an insurance policy;

Jaz claims that Republicans don't like social security because it takes money from the rich (missing the fact that the taxes put into social security are capped at $90,000);

Jaz claims that reform that would allow people to put a portion of their social security taxes into fully-owned private accounts are unfair because they favor the rich;

Jaz claims that his plan is to allow people to put savings into accounts that are in addition to social security payments (forgeting that people can already do that...unless he's favoring making these new savings accounts mandatory) despite claiming to favor social security reform last year and holding it against Bush for not reforming social security during his first term.

Like I said earlier Jaz, quit fighting it. You don't have to have a private account under Bush's plan. Just choose the old system and be comfortable with your crappy return. Just think Jaz, you'll be able to blame Bush for your dwindling social security returns for the rest of your life!

RINGLEADER
02-16-2005, 01:47 PM
One of the biggest jokes I have heard of. Yeah, lets give the gov't the power to invest our money.

Who is the highest bidder for this money to be invested in their company?


And I'm so sure the government will have no problem letting people invest in tobacco companies...


<I>On edit:</I> I read RNF's post to be a criticism of Jaz's plan to allow additional money to be invested in government accounts. But then again he does bring up a valid point that if you limit the types of investments that people can put their money in you will limit the number of people who piss it all away, but you will also limit the amount of return that you can generate.

Iowanian
02-16-2005, 07:05 PM
Greenspan seems to think you're full of shit too Jaz

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975923/

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 07:56 PM
Who are you? What the hell are you doing personally attacking me?

The investors are not going to be the american people.
Actually the investors will be American people, European people, and Asian people. Welcome to the world market.

Actually, the biggest joke is the government taking 12% of your paycheck and giving you a slovenly return that is less than if you put the money in a simple bank account - and you accepting it as reasonable.

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 07:57 PM
Greenspan seems to think you're full of shit too Jaz

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975923/
Damn that stupid Greenspan. I am sure that jAZ will straighten him out.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 10:34 PM
Jaz: Bush wants to phase out social security.
Bush: Private accounts will supplement social security payouts.
Jaz: But Bush is telling his Republican friends behind closed doors that he is going to phase it out.

How, exactly, do you know this Jaz? Or is this another 'Fake, but accurate' claim like you were making with the CBS memos?
Of course the Republican party agenda (spear headed by Bush) is to phase out SS. Why are you even questioning this?

There are several hundred posts from you and others advocating just that. There are memos advocating as much.

That you are playing dumb about this is a complete joke.It shows that you can't have an honest discussion... you have to angle your way to rhetorical "victory".

And maybe I'm missing something here... If all of the doom and gloom your guys are spouting about SS is true in your mind, then Bush and the Republicans better damn well be pushing to phase it out. It would be one of the great ethical failures to honestly belive the system is unworkable, doomed to failure and on the verge of collapse, and not attempt to replace it.

You are caught in your own failed logic. Once again.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 10:37 PM
... to pay back the IOUs ...
I quit reading when I saw that you acknowledged the problem.

I thought RL deserved a little recognition.

PBJ

That was a pretty big blunder on the shill-scale.

That's the Planet equivilant of letting that Wehner memo get out.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 10:44 PM
Like I said earlier Jaz, quit fighting it. You don't have to have a private account under Bush's plan.
If I didn't believe that Bush's vaguely outlined plan was anything less than the grease on the slippery slope of phasing out entirely SS (which is blindingly obvious and even celebrated by everyone around here, including YOU), I wouldn't be fighting it.

But I don't think anyone here can (with a straight face) deny that this is intended to be the first step in a phase out of SS.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 10:47 PM
Greenspan seems to think you're full of shit too Jaz

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975923/
I could have told you this back in the 80's.

Knowing that Greenspan prefers private accounts is not rocket science is it?

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 10:49 PM
I quit reading.............



That would explain a great deal of your posts.

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 10:49 PM
I could have told you this back in the 80's.

Knowing that Greenspan prefers private accounts is not rocket science is it?
So you believe you know more than Greenspan as well?

jAZ
02-16-2005, 11:00 PM
So you believe you know more than Greenspan as well?
No, this is about ideology.

Greenspan has always been a private-accounts-instead-of-SS guy. He's the proponent of PA's that I respect the most. He's very moderate and cautious in his approach, which is important.

There is "nothing shocking" about this.

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 11:18 PM
No, this is about ideology.

Greenspan has always been a private-accounts-instead-of-SS guy. He's the proponent of PA's that I respect the most. He's very moderate and cautious in his approach, which is important.

There is "nothing shocking" about this.
So you don't mind telling us we are wrong, but you don't want to say Greenspan is wrong?

Interesting

jAZ
02-16-2005, 11:29 PM
So you don't mind telling us we are wrong, but you don't want to say Greenspan is wrong?

Interesting
I've said from the beginning that this was about ideology. Where have you been?

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 11:31 PM
I've said from the beginning that this was about ideology. Where have you been?
Again, you don't mind saying we are wrong, but refuse to state Greenspan is wrong for saying the same thing.

Interesting.

jAZ
02-16-2005, 11:42 PM
Again, you don't mind saying we are wrong, but refuse to state Greenspan is wrong for saying the same thing.

Interesting.
No, you haven't been paying attention.

I've said all along that the battle over the underlying ideology is a fair and reasonable debate. I've said that you, Bush, RL and most Republicans are wrong for conflating solvency and the "solution" of switching to PA.

I've said that I think the notion of phasing out SS is short sighted.

I think Greenspan is being short sighted on this issue as well. In that respect, he is just as "wrong" about it as you guys are.

There is one difference between you guys and Greenspan. He doesn't speak in radical, overzealous, competitive, politically motivated language. He's spent the last 20 years acting moderately because he seems to recognize that it's about personal preference (ideology) and not doom-and-gloom.

I respect him a lot more than almost any of the Republicans around here (sadly).

mlyonsd
02-17-2005, 07:40 AM
No, you haven't been paying attention.

I've said all along that the battle over the underlying ideology is a fair and reasonable debate. I've said that you, Bush, RL and most Republicans are wrong for conflating solvency and the "solution" of switching to PA.

I've said that I think the notion of phasing out SS is short sighted.

I think Greenspan is being short sighted on this issue as well. In that respect, he is just as "wrong" about it as you guys are.

There is one difference between you guys and Greenspan. He doesn't speak in radical, overzealous, competitive, politically motivated language. He's spent the last 20 years acting moderately because he seems to recognize that it's about personal preference (ideology) and not doom-and-gloom.

I respect him a lot more than almost any of the Republicans around here (sadly).

Sorry jAZ but in a debate over the longtime funding of SS and solvency I'd take Greenspan's advice over you. I'm only basing my opinion on his experience of course.

Several years ago I remember a bipartisan commission was put together and Sen. Patrick Moyhnahan, one of the most liberal senators of his day spoke up in favor of private accounts. I don't think anyone is saying it will fix all of SS's problems but it is a start.

jAZ
02-17-2005, 08:11 AM
Sorry jAZ but in a debate over the longtime funding of SS and solvency I'd take Greenspan's advice over you. I'm only basing my opinion on his experience of course.
I don't have a problem with that.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:05 PM
Didn't Greenspan also say that Bush's tax cuts would not force us into deficit spending?

I don't trust him anymore than I do anyone else being paid to peddle this administrations policies.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 04:41 PM
No, you haven't been paying attention.

I've said all along that the battle over the underlying ideology is a fair and reasonable debate. I've said that you, Bush, RL and most Republicans are wrong for conflating solvency and the "solution" of switching to PA.

I've said that I think the notion of phasing out SS is short sighted.

I think Greenspan is being short sighted on this issue as well. In that respect, he is just as "wrong" about it as you guys are.

There is one difference between you guys and Greenspan. He doesn't speak in radical, overzealous, competitive, politically motivated language. He's spent the last 20 years acting moderately because he seems to recognize that it's about personal preference (ideology) and not doom-and-gloom.

I respect him a lot more than almost any of the Republicans around here (sadly).
Greenspan has not said it is about ideology at all, has he? In fact, quite the contrary.

Again, you don't mind saying we are wrong, but refuse to state Greenspan is wrong for saying the same thing.

Interesting.

KCWolfman
02-17-2005, 04:43 PM
Didn't Greenspan also say that Bush's tax cuts would not force us into deficit spending?

I don't trust him anymore than I do anyone else being paid to peddle this administrations policies.
What economic advisors do you trust?

BTW - Yes, Greenspan said just that. He also released a document yesterday showing spending, new homes, and the economy are all on the rise from when GWB took office. Perhaps you need to get your news from somewhere other than ihategeorgebush.com?

Taco John
02-17-2005, 04:59 PM
It was a fine analogy, but your's will work as well. Only you have to change it slightly.

You have a leaky set of tires. You are faced with 4 solutions.

1) Keep your existing tires and hope you make it to work.
2) Buy a different set of tires but they just as much as your existing tires.
3) Buy a patch kit to fix the existing tires.
4) Buy a different set of tires that leak as well, but also buy the patch kit for the new tires.

Choices 1 and 2 are just plain stupid.

Choice 3 and 4 are debatable, and really it is up to you and your preferences on tires.

Same with SS/PA.

Any discussion of PA without fixing the solvency is pointless. Given that the issue of solvency isn't fixed by switching to PA's, any discussion of SS's future solvency is irrelevant when discussing PA's.

The issue of switching to PA's vs keeping SS should be debated on merits of the two programs. It can't be (rationally) debated on scare tactics about solvency of one program or the other.

To keep bringing up crap about SS being bankrupt, broken, or insolvent is bogus. If you want to talk about those issues, then you aren't debating the structure of the system (SS vs PA), but the underlying funding and payout mechanisms (indexing, borrowing, etc).

Anyone who continues to link SS and insolvency are showing political stripes and nothing more.



Well, I guess the Democrats should have won then.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:36 PM
I think the Dem's have "won" the debate on PA's.

And not an easy task given the known amounts of propaganda that the Bush adminitration is pumping out.

With MY tax dollars no less.

I wonder why conservatives aren't talking about a male prostitute working in the White House press corps?

Maybe I'm wrong, but if it had been a dem, and a dem White House...

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 01:40 PM
I think the Dem's have "won" the debate on PA's

Your a moron **** off Thomas.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 01:41 PM
With MY tax dollars no less.

...

Who are you kidding you unemployed POS.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:48 PM
Can actually debate someone, or is this your "style"?

Taco John
02-18-2005, 01:50 PM
I think the Dem's have "won" the debate on PA's...



Of course you do. You also think the Dem's have "won" the last two elections.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:50 PM
Are you a gay prostitute too, "big" daddy?

Is that why you aren't saying anything about Gannon?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:51 PM
Please provide the quote where I said that, taco, or I will asume that you are a lying sack.

Just another Jeff Gannon.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 02:06 PM
Can actually debate someone, or is this your "style"?

A brain is a prerequisite to having a debate and since you don't have one it's pointless. Your communist roots put you in the category of a if you were drowning my idea of help would be throwing rocks at you anyway.

Answer me this, why do you continue to post in a place where you are so despised and have been kicked off countless times?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:14 PM
I have never been kicked off of this, or any other board in my life, except Free Republic, but I think we all know that is a given for conservatives on DU as well.

But as far as me, and my posting on THIS board?

I never did until last week, when jAZ invited me.

You can keep telling yourself that I am the same person that obvisouly got WAY under your skin, but I am not.

As far as being despised, it comes with the territory.
Jesus wasn't exactly a popular fellow in his day.
Look at what they did to him on the way to the cross?

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 02:28 PM
Jesus wasn't exactly a popular fellow in his day.


Now your Jesus ROFL

****ing jaz. I can't believe your not Thomas I didn't think anyone else that stupid.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:50 PM
"big" daddy wrote: ****ing jaz. I can't believe your not Thomas I didn't think anyone else that stupid.

At least I don't get so pissed at people on internet message board that I threaten them.

You might want to seek help.

Valiant
02-18-2005, 02:59 PM
Like I said... this isn't a debate about fiscal solvency... its about ideology. But Republicans don't want to have an honest debate on the ideology... they must feel that they can't win on those grounds.

So they are trying to scare people with the bait and switch.

Bait = insolvent future of SS
Switch = the only soultion is Private accounts

When the reality is private accounts admittedly DON'T solve the problem of solvency.

So the real question of solvency... is about wage indexing (or benefit cuts), regardless of the structure of the program.


Why the **** are you still whining about this... the Damn Dems do the exact same thing..why dont you just bitch about our government in a whole.. Both parties are equally to blame... At least you would be acurate for once..

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 03:04 PM
At least I don't get so pissed at people on internet message board that I threaten them.

You might want to seek help.

Whatever, I'll talk to jaz, if your not Thomas I'll appologize then put you on ignore.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:32 PM
Just put me on ignore now.

It isn't like you are intellectually stimulating in the first place.

You certainly aren't adding to the debate as far as I can see.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 03:34 PM
Whatever, I'll talk to jaz, if your not Thomas I'll appologize then put you on ignore.

I don't know who Thomas is. Are you sure this isn't buttstreak again?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:36 PM
So basicly, anyone that doesn't agree with you guys MUST be the same person under a different name?

Why not just start putting stars on liberals shoulders and get on with the "Final Solution"?

patteeu
02-18-2005, 04:06 PM
Do the democrats agree that their resistance to reform is about ideology not about good policy?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:14 PM
patteeu wrote: Do the democrats agree that their resistance to reform is about ideology not about good policy?

I think you have that backwards.
SS was never meant to be a retirement plan, but insurance to make sure that if all your other plans failed, or you were handicapped, that you wouldn't end up on the street.

There were plenty of private pensions that were wiped out in the 1929 crash, as well as 4 years ago when ENRON went tit's up.

Have you forgotten how many people were hurt, and lost ten's of thousands in value in their 401k's a couple of years ago?

That isn't exactly ancient history.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2005, 04:20 PM
I don't know who Thomas is. Are you sure this isn't buttstreak again?

I thought all these guys were the same. Thomas,burningformansteak, bushliedIdied,bushatemypie,remount and this guy.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:38 PM
But then you aren't the brightest halogen on the roof rack, are you, big daddy?

historymann49
02-18-2005, 04:45 PM
Can't you have a serious discussion without acting like an infant?
Grow up or get off line and spare the rest of us.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Biggie small has been harassing me since I get here.

It ain't your problem, so back off or it will be.

jAZ
02-18-2005, 06:28 PM
Do the democrats agree that their resistance to reform is about ideology not about good policy?
That's not an either/or statement.

Or would you care to answer the same question?

Do republicans agree that their desire to throw out SS is about ideology not about good policy?

jAZ
02-18-2005, 06:31 PM
Whatever, I'll talk to jaz, if your not Thomas I'll appologize then put you on ignore.
Put him on Ignore.

Lefty was a regular over at my website. I decided to stop paying for the site after the election. Was costing me too much $$ for not enough activity.

So I offered Lefty a 2nd home in return for "kicking him out".

He seems to be fitting in quite well I see.

:p

patteeu
02-19-2005, 12:04 PM
I think you have that backwards.
SS was never meant to be a retirement plan, but insurance to make sure that if all your other plans failed, or you were handicapped, that you wouldn't end up on the street.

There were plenty of private pensions that were wiped out in the 1929 crash, as well as 4 years ago when ENRON went tit's up.

Have you forgotten how many people were hurt, and lost ten's of thousands in value in their 401k's a couple of years ago?

That isn't exactly ancient history.

Apparently you quoted me by accident since your response doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I said.

WilliamTheIrish
02-19-2005, 12:18 PM
Put him on Ignore.

Lefty was a regular over at my website. I decided to stop paying for the site after the election. Was costing me too much $$ for not enough activity.

So I offered Lefty a 2nd home in return for "kicking him out".

He seems to be fitting in quite well I see.

:p

At least we know who to thank.

patteeu
02-19-2005, 12:20 PM
That's not an either/or statement.

Or would you care to answer the same question?

Do republicans agree that their desire to throw out SS is about ideology not about good policy?

What is the point of your thread? If you find it surprising that the creation of private accounts is not a solvency fix for the current ponzi scheme then you aren't very well versed in the issue to begin with. It isn't a solvency fix, it's a retirement security fix. It reduces the impact of the problem created by the insolvency, but since it isn't a wealth transfer mechanism it doesn't actually address the insolvency of the flawed wealth transfer system we have now at all.

It's like saying that a new Segway wouldn't actually fix my broken motor scooter. True enough, but it does address my need to move around the neighborhood.

The democrat's position in this debate is just as ideological as that of the Republicans. The dems are benefitted by maintaining an entitlement class, the repubs are benefitted by transforming it into an investment class.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:26 PM
I think you have that backwards.
SS was never meant to be a retirement plan, but insurance to make sure that if all your other plans failed, or you were handicapped, that you wouldn't end up on the street.
.

Finally a liberal who admits the aim of SS. About time.


Now why do I have to pay 12% to have that fund? Socialism in small doses is alright, at 12% it is theft.

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 01:28 PM
Put him on Ignore.

Lefty was a regular over at my website. I decided to stop paying for the site after the election. Was costing me too much $$ for not enough activity.

So I offered Lefty a 2nd home in return for "kicking him out".

He seems to be fitting in quite well I see.

:p

Do us all a favor and take your communist buddies over to Orange Mane would ya? We don't need to see that shit head posting here every day.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:33 PM
Do us all a favor and take your communist buddies over to Orange Mane would ya? We don't need to see that shit head posting here every day.
Actually, the fact that he and LeftisttheSocialist are condemning privatization so much is enough for me to believe it is for the betterment of the individual and capitalists nationwide. Their faux tears and constant dancing around facts show an innate fear of their terror grip of the elderly being lost.

No longer will they be able to cry along John Kerry that "They want to steal your social security" and will be simply relegated to the Al Gore premise that "they want to charge you more for your prescriptions than they charge your dog".

jAZ
02-19-2005, 01:37 PM
Do us all a favor and take your communist buddies over to Orange Mane would ya? We don't need to see that shit head posting here every day.
I could say the same thing about a dozen other conservatives around here.

jAZ
02-19-2005, 01:38 PM
No longer will they be able to cry along John Kerry that "They want to steal your social security"
Do you really think that the political rhetoric over SS will go away if it is replaced with PA's? Please.

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 01:44 PM
I could say the same thing about a dozen other conservatives around here.

I noticed you dodged the question for the second time now. You said he was on your other sight but you never said it wasn't Thomas. Simple yes or no without the spin would be nice for once.

I am just glad we have 2 BB's now so he can't pollute the main forum.

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 01:47 PM
Do you really think that the political rhetoric over SS will go away if it is replaced with PA's? Please.

SS should be privatized by at least 50% or completely eliminated. I would give up all the money I put in just to walk away from it right now and I am 42. I'll bet most people who have their shit together feel the same way.

jAZ
02-19-2005, 01:47 PM
I noticed you dodged the question for the second time now. You said he was on your other sight but you never said it wasn't Thomas. Simple yes or no without the spin would be nice for once.

I am just glad we have 2 BB's now so he can't pollute the main forum.
Well, unfortunately I can't give you a simple yes or no because I've never met either person. So the only honest answer is I don't know.

But I will say that Lefty didn't seem to know anything about this place until I refered him. And I suspect he came to AATalk via DU or some other board (not via the Planet).

So all signs point away from this guy being your arch-nemisis Thomas. I don't believe he is Thomas or any of the other names. I believe (with a high degree of certainty) its a different person.

Is that close enough to a "simple yes or no" to qualify by technicality? It's the best I can do without saying something I can't be certain of.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:50 PM
Do you really think that the political rhetoric over SS will go away if it is replaced with PA's? Please.
I don't know..... Let's find out, okay!

jAZ
02-19-2005, 01:52 PM
I don't know..... Let's find out, okay!
Your prediction of what's left to say is absent much insight into politics. A better guess would be that "all Politicians would be left with would be" we promise to restore SS ... or some other more inspriational equivilant.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:56 PM
Your prediction of what's left to say is absent much insight into politics. A better guess would be that "all Politicians would be left with would be" we promise to restore SS ... or some other more inspriational equivilant.
I can live with that. Let's do it now!

BIG_DADDY
02-19-2005, 02:03 PM
Well, unfortunately I can't give you a simple yes or no because I've never met either person. So the only honest answer is I don't know.

But I will say that Lefty didn't seem to know anything about this place until I refered him. And I suspect he came to AATalk via DU or some other board (not via the Planet).

So all signs point away from this guy being your arch-nemisis Thomas. I don't believe he is Thomas or any of the other names. I believe (with a high degree of certainty) its a different person.

Is that close enough to a "simple yes or no" to qualify by technicality? It's the best I can do without saying something I can't be certain of.

Thomas didn't have the capacity to be anyone's arch-nemesis and either does this guy but thanks for telling me what you know.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 12:33 AM
Thomas didn't have the capacity to be anyone's arch-nemesis and either does this guy but thanks for telling me what you know.
So are you gonna apologize?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:46 AM
I ain't gonna hold my breath, jAZ.

I think little girl has already shown me who he is.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 09:31 AM
I ain't gonna hold my breath, jAZ.

I think little girl has already shown me who he is.
Personally, I think you should hold your breathe.

And you really need to work on your slams, little girl is just lame. For someone who bitched about name calling and equating them to ignorant posts, you sure don't mind displaying your own ignorance, do you?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Yeah, you're probably right.

Calling someone who calls himself "big daddy" "little girl" shows that I have no sense of irony.

Thanks for pointing that out.

By the way, you probably shouldn't fight "big daddy's" battles for him.
He's probably big enough to fight them himself.

But you know him better than I do.
So maybe you are sticking up for him because he IS a little girl?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:04 PM
Yeah, you're probably right.

Calling someone who calls himself "big daddy" "little girl" shows that I have no sense of irony.

Thanks for pointing that out.

By the way, you probably shouldn't fight "big daddy's" battles for him.
He's probably big enough to fight them himself.

But you know him better than I do.
So maybe you are sticking up for him because he IS a little girl?
Actually, I don't have a dog in that fight.

I was just pointing out your double standard about whining when others resort to names and stating they have a lesser intelligence than yourself when you obviously do the same thing.

You can choose the label hypocrite or name calling dumbass for yourself - either are applicable.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:18 PM
Maybe your reading comprehension just sucks, KC.

Given the way that the republicans have tried to destroy public schools, I guess you only have yourself and your kind to blame.

I never said that people can't call one another names.

I just pointed out that "big daddy" and some others have ONLY called me names, and haven't even tried to engage me on the subjects at hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have I called for anyone to be banned?

I don't see you getting too upset about people attacking me and asking for me to be banned.

I think it might be you that has a double standard?

BIG_DADDY
02-20-2005, 12:29 PM
I just pointed out that "big daddy" and some others have ONLY called me names, and haven't even tried to engage me on the subjects at hand.

?

That's because there is no point in arguing with a tard. If you can't even see that SS is in better hands with an individual than the government there is nothing to talk about you're an idiot. Schools should be privatized too, public schools suck.

BTW, this comes from somebody that does charity work with the schools. I'll bet you don't do any charity work in your community at all. You have the ability to do is menstrate all over sports BB with your horseshit.

On another note I am not a Republican but I don't expect you to have picked up on that because you don't seem to have the capacity to pick up on much. I am Libertarian and never voted for GW in either election. People like you are the death of your party because nobody wants to be associated with you.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:37 PM
lil' girl wrote: That's because there is no point in arguing with a tard. If you can't even see that SS is in better hands with an individual than the government there is nothing to talk about you're an idiot. Schools should be privatized too, public schools suck.

Thanks for proving my point.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:44 PM
Maybe your reading comprehension just sucks, KC.

Given the way that the republicans have tried to destroy public schools, I guess you only have yourself and your kind to blame.

I never said that people can't call one another names.

I just pointed out that "big daddy" and some others have ONLY called me names, and haven't even tried to engage me on the subjects at hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have I called for anyone to be banned?

I don't see you getting too upset about people attacking me and asking for me to be banned.

I think it might be you that has a double standard?
#1. Schools are a whole new subject. Tell me about the 20+ year Democrat run KC School District. You look like a fool bring that subject up after they lost accredidation and Dem Governor Holden stole money from my school district to pay for their stupidity. Oh, and BTW, MO officials have agreed to meet with the lawyers of the Liberty school district to see about settling out of court for the theft. My recommendation is not to settle and to bring the issue to a national level.

#2. No, you are now a liar. You stated that those who call other people names merely do so because they are ignorant and have nothing to offer. Obviously you are ignorant and have nothing to offer.

#3. I don't give a damn about banning. You need to lower the psylosibin levels. I honestly don't know what you are talking about as I have never mentioned anything about banning. You have a real hard time staying on topic when proven to be a fool.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:57 PM
KC wrote: #2. No, you are now a liar. You stated that those who call other people names merely do so because they are ignorant and have nothing to offer. Obviously you are ignorant and have nothing to offer.

Actually, KC, what I said was:
I never said that people can't call one another names.

I just pointed out that "big daddy" and some others have ONLY called me names, and haven't even tried to engage me on the subjects at hand.


And he even proved what I said when he replied:
That's because there is no point in arguing with a tard.

Would you like to apologize?
Or just continue lying about what I said?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:58 PM
By the way, as I said, your reading comprehension SUCKS, KC.

I NEVER said that you asked to ban me.
I asked you why you don't seem to be bothered by the behavior of your less intelligent bretheren.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:01 PM
Actually, KC, what I said was:


And he even proved what I said when he replied:

Would you like to apologize?
Or just continue lying about what I said?
Read back to your first posts on and around Feb 10. You stated numerous times that those who call others names are ignorant and have nothing to offer.

When did I mention only your quotes today are applicable? This isn't the Democrat platform.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Please provide a link to the quotes, and the quotes themselves.

You also accused me of saying that you had called for me to be banned.

Seeing as how you have a limited grasp of events as they actually happened, I will assume that you are making stuff up again.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:19 PM
Please provide a link to the quotes, and the quotes themselves.

You also accused me of saying that you had called for me to be banned.

Seeing as how you have a limited grasp of events as they actually happened, I will assume that you are making stuff up again.
No, I didn't. Please quote me where I accused anyone or anything about anyone being banned. In fact, I went to efforts to state that 'banning' was not on topic, but as usual, you got distracted by something shiny. Is English your first language?

However, on the other point, I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

If I don't I will post a thread to you apologizing for my error.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:31 PM
No, I didn't. Please quote me where I accused anyone or anything about anyone being banned. In fact, I went to efforts to state that 'banning' was not on topic, but as usual, you got distracted by something shiny. Is English your first language?

However, on the other point, I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

If I don't I will post a thread to you apologizing for my error.
Hello, is this thing on?

I wonder why he didn't answer?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:38 PM
Hello, is this thing on?

I wonder why he didn't answer?
Wow five or six other answers on other threads, but he must have lost track of this one.

Gee, I would hope that he wouldn't be dodging my point. After all, he seems so honest.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:57 PM
Sorry, is this what you were reffering too, KC?

You might want to link to the correct page if you want me to respond.

Of course I'll apologize if I'm wrong!

I'm a friggin liberal, not a conservative!

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:59 PM
Here, I'll prove it.

All republicans are felatiating liars with no journalistic experience.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:01 PM
Correction: When I said: "All republicans are felatiating liars with no journalistic experience."

I was incorrect.

Not ALL republicans are felatiating liars with no journalistic experience.

But some of the ones that are get a press pass to the White House.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:02 PM
Sorry, is this what you were reffering too, KC?

You might want to link to the correct page if you want me to respond.

Of course I'll apologize if I'm wrong!

I'm a friggin liberal, not a conservative!
Again, not "apologize" but create a thread admitting you were wrong, and apologizing to me directly in that thread.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:03 PM
Sorry, is this what you were reffering too, KC?

You might want to link to the correct page if you want me to respond.

Of course I'll apologize if I'm wrong!

I'm a friggin liberal, not a conservative!
BTW - The link was correct, you moron.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:23 PM
Um, the link took me to the first page of the thread.

I did you a favor by looking for your post, that you were obviously incapable of linking in the first place.

If you want me to help you out, fine, i can do that.
I'm a liberal, it's in my nature.

If I'm doing you a favor by humoring you, you could at least stop copping an attitude.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:26 PM
Um, the link took me to the first page of the thread.

I did you a favor by looking for your post, that you were obviously incapable of linking in the first place.

If you want me to help you out, fine, i can do that.
I'm a liberal, it's in my nature.

If I'm doing you a favor by humoring you, you could at least stop copping an attitude.
So yes or no, do you accept the bet? I want an advance notice so that I am sure you spell my name correctly.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:43 PM
What is the "bet"?

You seem to be asking me to agree to something without being clear as to what it is.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:47 PM
What is the "bet"?

You seem to be asking me to agree to something without being clear as to what it is.
What a royal f*ck up you must be in real life. I have quoted and quoted the bet again and again. You agreed to it and now you act as if you haven't read it?

So what you are saying is that you refuse to keep the terms of the bet? It's no surprise, I just wanted it on the page for future reference when you complain about others' hypocrisy. Not only have you lied about the name calling situation, but now you want to lie about the bet.

Well, good luck. I imagine you will implode before too long. You don't have the stones to last on a board where a differing opinion exists, and you obviously don't have the honesty.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:50 PM
I am asking you to make a clear post regarding the "bet".

I'm sorry that you find that so difficult.

You are trying to get me to commit to something that you are refusing to be clear on.

By the way, in the future, if you want to call me out, start a new thread, rather than assuming that I will check every post that you write to see if it is addressed to me.

Making me jump from thread to thread when you are trying to make a tight case for my supposed gaffes is really kinda weak.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:58 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize you have consistency isues as well.

The post was clear, obviously your short term memory isn't. That can occur with too many of those brownies, you know.

Once more, for the dense people in the crowd

What exactly are you trying to get me to say, KC?

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
Cool, start the thread - Something to the effect of

I was wrong to incorrectly blame KCWolfman for a falsehood. I obviously have posted statements on here that are in direct conflict with one another and I am wrong and have lied about the topic.
The Wager
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
The Proof
Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm Please pardon the spelling, but it is your own, not mine.

Link
Lefty Hypocritical Setup (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001&page=3&pp=20)

In the future, before blaming others for hypocrisy or ignorance, I hope you are smart enough to reflect on this moment.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:07 PM
I think you are making a reach that I will not, and cannot agreee to.

You are taking what I said and spinning it.
Why on earth would anyone agree to something as F'd up as that?


Taking what I said, and turning it into a blanket statement is completely retarded, and now I know why you were trying to cover it up in BS.

You must be another graduate of the Jeff Gannon school of journalism.

DanT
02-20-2005, 03:18 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

In your 12:58 pm (Pacific Time) post on this thread, you provided the following two quotes. Can you tell me where each one comes from, either link them or tell me their addresses in terms of 'thread name and post #/post time)'? Thanks.

The Wager
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist
That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--DanT

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:28 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

In your 12:58 pm (Pacific Time) post on this thread, you provided the following two quotes. Can you tell me where each one comes from, either link them or tell me their addresses in terms of "thread name and post #/post time)? Thanks.



--Dan
Damn, you too?


Sure

Lefty - Today 2:30 p.m. CST What exactly are you trying to get me to say, KC?

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!

To be clear, I had to pull teeth to finally get him to answer. That was in direct reply to this statement on the same thread

Yes, you answered you would apologize. You did not state you would accept the bet. I just want to be perfectly clear. Your equivocation in the past has led me to believe you would be less than honest unless I have an exact answer.

From his statement
Actually, I have answered it, even though you couldn't actually kink to the right page of the thread you were talking about....

Maybe you could get on with your bad self and get to the point?

All on Lefty Agrees to Bet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=1)

For those challenged not to have their setup in newest posts first this link may take you to the first page instead of the last

From my stament on the same thread Hell, I am still waiting for you to say you accept my bet proving or disproving your hypocrisy. I have asked over a couple of threads now and you still dodge it.

In regards to the original statement (neatly avoided for quite over an hour by Lefty) on this very thread and page

at 1:19 p.m. CST
No, I didn't. Please quote me where I accused anyone or anything about anyone being banned. In fact, I went to efforts to state that 'banning' was not on topic, but as usual, you got distracted by something shiny. Is English your first language?

However, on the other point, I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

If I don't I will post a thread to you apologizing for my error.

Obviously he is going to feign ignorance and act as those the statements can be equivocated to something other than what was stated.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:37 PM
Saying that calling someone names is a sign of a lower intellect it NOT the same as saying that all people that call names are stupid.

I don't know why you needed that explained to you.
(that was more wasted sarcasm, I'm sure...)

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:37 PM
Saying that calling someone names is a sign of a lower intellect it NOT the same as saying that all people that call names are stupid.

I don't know why you needed that explained to you.
(that was more wasted sarcasm, I'm sure...)
I said "All people"? Can you provide a quote, liar?

I believe I said that you stated "those who call others names are ignorant" with a [sic] attached to signify it was not a direct quote. Furthermore, you backed that statement several times before I pulled up your original quote.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:39 PM
Like I said, I knew it was wasted...

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:43 PM
Like I said, I knew it was wasted...
translation - Busted again.

DanT
02-20-2005, 03:44 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

At 1:18 p.m. (Pacific Time) on this thread, I asked

Hey KCWolfman,

In your 12:58 pm (Pacific Time) post on this thread, you provided the following two quotes. Can you tell me where each one comes from, either link them or tell me their addresses in terms of 'thread name and post #/post time)'? Thanks.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman
The Wager
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist
That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--DanT

Your long post at 1:28 p.m. (Pacific Time) on this thread contained an answer regarding the location of the 2nd quote, which was where you said, at 2:30 Central Time on the thread you hyperlinked:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=2&pp=15

But there wasn't an answer regarding the location of the 1st of the quotes in my request. I couldn't find that 1st quote on the thread with the 2nd quote. Where is the location of the 1st quote, the quote from you?

Thanks.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:45 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

At 1:18 p.m. on this thread, I asked


Your long post at 1:28 p.m. (Pacific Time) on this thread contained an answer regarding the location of the 2nd quote, which was where you said, at 2:30 Central Time on the thread you hyperlinked:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=2&pp=15

But there wasn't an answer regarding the location of the 1st of the quotes in my request. I couldn't find it on the thread with the 2nd quote. Where is the location of the 1st quote, the one from you?

Thanks.
Yes, there was, I stated it was on this very thread. It will now probably be on the second page. It even included the time stamp.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:46 PM
Yes, there was, I stated it was on this very thread. It will now probably be on the second page.


In regards to the original statement (neatly avoided for quite over an hour by Lefty) on this very thread and page

DanT
02-20-2005, 03:57 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

I couldn't understand your last two posts. I'm just asking for the location of the 1st quote in the following exchange. Just fill in the location for me in the style of the address for the 2nd quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman at _______________
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist at 12:30 p.m. (Central Time) Today on this thread:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=2&pp=15
That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:01 PM
Hey KCWolfman,

I couldn't understand your last two posts. I'm just asking for the location of the 1st quote in the following exchange. Just fill in the location for me in the style of the address for the 2nd quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman at _______________
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist at 12:30 p.m. (Central Time) Today on this thread:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=2&pp=15
That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan - It is on this thread about two pages back.

Originally Posted by KCWolfman at 1:19 p.m. (Central Time) Today
Bet Placed (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=2&pp=20)

Also note that you have the time wrong on Lefty's thread. I stated it was 2:30 pm not 12:30 pm

Boozer
02-20-2005, 05:22 PM
Also note that you have the time wrong on Lefty's thread. I stated it was 2:30 pm not 12:30 pm

I'm guessing we may have a mutual PST/CST misunderstanding here.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:32 PM
I'm guessing we may have a mutual PST/CST misunderstanding here.
Also note that Dan quoted (Central Time) when he noted the time.

Boozer
02-20-2005, 05:41 PM
Also note that Dan quoted (Central Time) when he noted the time.

Then note that I stand corrected.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:42 PM
I'm not sure why that would bother you, KC.

You've been accusing me of saying something all morning that you STILL haven't backed up.

And by the way, look up the use of "sic".

I don't think it means what you think it means, at least the way you used it.

DanT
02-20-2005, 05:42 PM
Dan - It is on this thread about two pages back.

Originally Posted by KCWolfman at 1:19 p.m. (Central Time) Today
Bet Placed (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=2&pp=20)

Also note that you have the time wrong on Lefty's thread. I stated it was 2:30 pm not 12:30 pm

Thanks! I found the 1st quote. It's where you said, at 1:19 p.m. (Central Time) Today (post #147) on this very thread.

Also, you are correct that I got the time wrong when I said that the 2nd quote was 12:30 p.m (Central Time). It was from, as you said, 2:30 p.m. (Central Time), which is 12:30 p.m. my time (Pacific Time). Sorry about that!

When I read the section labelled "The Wager" from your 2:58 p.m. Central Time post today on this thread, I got the impression that the two quotes were from the same thread. Here's how it read in your post:


The Wager
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman
I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist
That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's how it would read if the location of the original appearance of each quote were provided:


The Wager
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by KCWolfman at 1:19 p.m. Central Time Today in post #147 on the current thread Republicans admit private accounts are about ideology not solvency... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=2&pp=15)

I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Leftist at 2:30 p.m. Central Time Today in post #73 of the thread entitled Bush Whitehouse has ties to gay prostitution... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110487&page=4&pp=15)

That I will admit that I am wrong when I am?
Done and done!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DanT
02-20-2005, 05:46 PM
I'm guessing we may have a mutual PST/CST misunderstanding here.

That's right. There was a misunderstanding that I compounded by specifying "Central Time". I was aware of the possibility of that pitfall (which is why I (tried to) specify the timezone), but I fell down that pitfall nevertheless by specifying the wrong one.

KCWolfman's correction of my mistake is accurate. Sorry again for my mistake!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:50 PM
I'm not sure why that would bother you, KC.


I am not "bothering" at all. I was answering a question for another poster.

Obviously, you can't either comprehend or keep a wager. Either way, I am done with you. You have shown your true colors in just a few weeks. Between this and the drinking insults to people who have lost family members to drugs and alcohol, it is just a matter of time before you fully implode. I just hope it is on as grand a scale as TJ's was. We need more Classics material for the other forum.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:50 PM
That's right. There was a misunderstanding that I compounded by quoting Central Time. I was aware of the possibility of that pitfall (which is why I quoted the timezone), but I fell down that pitfall nevertheless!

KCWolfman's correction of my mistake is accurate. Sorry again for my mistake!
No need to apologize. I just didn't want to be blamed for placing the wager AFTER he accepted the terms.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:58 PM
You still haven't created a seprate thread as I requested.

I asked you repeatedly for clarification, but being clear wasn't really your goal, was it?

You can suck the peanuts out of my stool, and for good measure, eat the peanuts out of your dead uncles fossilized stool to boot.

Please give me more personal information about yourself so I can make sure that any insults in the future cut straight to the bone.

That way you won't have to ask me if I was talking about YOUR family.

If you are going to take everything personally, I might as well get the details right.

I hate being accused of something that I did by accident.

The next time I insult you and your family, I promise to be direct and to the point.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:05 PM
You still haven't created a seprate thread as I requested.

I asked you repeatedly for clarification, but being clear wasn't really your goal, was it?

You can suck the peanuts out of my stool, and for good measure, eat the peanuts out of your dead uncles fossilized stool to boot.

Please give me more personal information about yourself so I can make sure that any insults in the future cut straight to the bone.

That way you won't have to ask me if I was talking about YOUR family.

If you are going to take everything personally, I might as well get the details right.

I hate being accused of something that I did by accident.

The next time I insult you and your family, I promise to be direct and to the point.

I never stated you insulted my family at all. Again, can you quote where I stated thus or are you lying for the 3rd time today?

Tell me, you are against the controlled substances act, aren't you? After all, you display a great deal of reading comprehension issues along with your short term memory loss, equivocation of your own statements, and blatant lies. It would explain a great deal and you can use it as an excuse for future gaffs.

FTR - Dead people are cleansed before they are buried; therefore there would be no stool. Sounds like you practice some strange stuff in your part of the world. The bacteria is dangerous, so be careful.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:12 PM
I never said that I had insulted YOUR family in the past, only that I wanted to in the future, and I wanted to do it accurately.

Can you quote the part where you think that I said I had?

Or are you a complete fraud?

I can see where you would get the impression that I did, with my last phrase using the word "next", but that's just a more really is a result of your lack of critical thinking skills, not any supermlative efforst on my part.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:16 PM
I never said that I had insulted YOUR family in the past, only that I wanted to in the future, and I wanted to do it accurately.

Can you quote the part where you think that I said I had?

Or are you a complete fraud?

I can see where you would get the impression that I did, with my last phrase using the word "next", but that's just a more really is a result of your lack of critical thinking skills, not any supermlative efforst on my part.
Cool, insult away. It's not like I value your opinion in the least.

BTW - Can you get someone to translate that last paragraph? Your tar level must be too high and you are really typing some illegible stuff.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:23 PM
You are correct.
I was typing a bit fast.

Thanks for taking the high road.
I'd hate to see you descend to my level.

Now can I have those details?
No names, just relation and f'd-up situation.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:25 PM
Thanks for taking the high road.
I'd hate to see you descend to my level.



I doubt that is possible as I don't wear clown makeup while I beat off to kids pictures.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 06:30 PM
I know, you do it the nude at the park.
Jeff Gannon already reported the story.

Complete with pics of you in the wading pool.

It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:33 PM
It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

No surprise there.

|Zach|
02-20-2005, 06:46 PM
I know, you do it the nude at the park.
Jeff Gannon already reported the story.

Complete with pics of you in the wading pool.

It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!
Shut the **** up you are just being a dumbass now.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:47 PM
Shut the **** up you are just being a dumbass now.
Zach - I know you think I spend too much time on stuff like this, but this is my pure comedy. It is my reality TV. To watch the goober just lose it is worth every moment.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 06:52 PM
I doubt that is possible as I don't wear clown makeup while I beat off to kids pictures.
Shut the **** up you are just being a dumbass now.
To watch the goober just lose it is worth every moment.

|Zach|
02-20-2005, 06:56 PM
What the hell are you quoting me for

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:57 PM
.

You do realize he offered to grab my "little soldier" right?

Invite more, jAZ. They represent your party beautifully.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 06:58 PM
What the hell are you quoting me for
I just thought the response was appropriate for Wolfie too. That's all.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:00 PM
I just thought the response was appropriate for Wolfie too. That's all.
If I offer to hold your penis as Lefty did mine, you may have a point.

Your friend has lost it.

|Zach|
02-20-2005, 07:03 PM
I just thought the response was appropriate for Wolfie too. That's all.
Well I didn't...if you think it is appropriate for him then say it yourself.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:04 PM
Invite more, jAZ. They represent your party beautifully.
Clean up your own back yard before you start looking into mine.
**** off, already.
**** off!
You are a useless piece of trash
You truely are an ignorant ****! HUGE CROCK OF SHIT!
You too, are an ignorant ****...
You're a ****ing retard...
Should I quote Brock's last 6 posts too?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:05 PM
Clean up your own back yard before you start looking into mine.






Should I quote Brock's last 6 posts too?
Sure, did they offer to hold your member, too? Or are you stating that I invited Brock and BCD?

Seems to me your comparisons are pretty lame, now aren't they?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 07:07 PM
Clean up your own back yard before you start looking into mine.






Should I quote Brock's last 6 posts too?Awesome.
:thumb:

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Sure, did they offer to hold your member, too? Or are you stating that I invited Brock and BCD?

Seems to me your comparisons are pretty lame, now aren't they?
where exactly did he "offer to hold your member" again?

I have no idea what the one you quoted means, but I don't see anywhere that he was "offering to hold your member".

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 07:09 PM
I doubt that is possible as I don't wear clown makeup while I beat off to kids pictures.
ROFL

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:10 PM
Seems to me your comparisons are pretty lame, now aren't they?
I don't care who invited them... they are great representations of your party.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:12 PM
I don't care who invited them... they are great representations of your party.
Ahh, so it wasn't my quote that you were addressing but rather members of the Republican Party. You obviously didn't make that clear in your first post, so let me try again.

Keep bringing the trash to the house, jAZ, it shows the sad element you would invite.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:14 PM
where exactly did he "offer to hold your member" again?

I have no idea what the one you quoted means, but I don't see anywhere that he was "offering to hold your member".
Really? Are you playing dumb because you are embarrassed? Or did you truly not read the post?

It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

Seems to me he offered to take my "soldier" with "our own hands". I guess you have trouble reading that?

BigMeatballDave
02-20-2005, 07:17 PM
I don't care who invited them... they are great representations of your party.You referred the asshat. He comes in here acting like a dick, and thinking he owns the place. I've been a member since the beginning. Longer than you. I know that does not give me the right to call you a ****ing retard. I apologize for that. Completely uncalled for.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:27 PM
Really? Are you playing dumb because you are embarrassed? Or did you truly not read the post?



Seems to me he offered to take my "soldier" with "our own hands". I guess you have trouble reading that?
No, I can't tell what the hell that means... I first read it as "your own hands".

I looked again after your characterization and saw that the "y" was missing... so I went back to the rest of the sentence too see if it would provide context. The only person her refered to was not himself or you... but "they".

I don't know what "they", "your", "our" represent... but I do know that none of them are "my" (as in "my own hands). Which is what you are trying to declare.

|Zach|
02-20-2005, 07:27 PM
No, I can't tell what the hell that means...
C'mon...what a joke.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:29 PM
I know that does not give me the right to call you a ****ing retard. I apologize for that. Completely uncalled for.
And Lefty should do the same. As should Big Daddy, and Brock, and Wolfie and everyone else who bails on reasoned debate in a failed attempt to protect their ego through personal attacks.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:31 PM
C'mon...what a joke.
No, not at all... I read it (possibly incorrectly) to say "your". I certainly didn't read it to say "my", which is what Wolfie is trying to assert.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:32 PM
No, I can't tell what the hell that means... I first read it as "your own hands".

I looked again after your characterization and saw that the "y" was missing... so I went back to the rest of the sentence too see if it would provide context. The only person her refered to was not himself or you... but "they".

I don't know what "they", "your", "our" represent... but I do know that none of them are "my" (as in "my own hands). Which is what you are trying to declare.
Ahh, I see the equivocation is obviously contagious. Not true either. He stated "our". You did not see the pronoun "our" in the text? I can bring it back again if you would like.

Your statement "The only person her refered to was not himself or you... but "they" is false. He stated "our own hands" referring to himself and others.

I don't have to try to declare anything, the fact is there. The fact that you are deliberately obtuse regarding his statement also speaks volumes for your own character.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:33 PM
No, not at all... I read it (possibly incorrectly) to say "your". I certainly didn't read it to say "my", which is what Wolfie is trying to assert.
He said "OUR OWN HANDS".

What did you miss?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:42 PM
He said "OUR OWN HANDS".

What did you miss?
Where it said "my own hands".

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:46 PM
Wolfie, the thing that probably pisses you off the most about this discussion is that you KNOW for a FACT that if the roles were reversed, you would be making the EXACT SAME point.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:50 PM
Where it said "my own hands".
He stated OUR own hands.

Now you want us to interpret what he meant and not what he actually posted. Hmmm:

What jAZ thought Lefty_the_Pervert type
or
What Lefty actually typed?

Which should I believe?

How droll after all the truth from the press posts you have created. Obviously, you don't hold yourself or your friends to the same standards you hold others.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:51 PM
Wolfie, the thing that probably pisses you off the most about this discussion is that you KNOW for a FACT that if the roles were reversed, you would be making the EXACT SAME point.
Ahhh, now you not only know what Left wanted to say, you KNOW what I want to say as well.

Obviously, the arrogance and ignorance from Lefty is contagious.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:56 PM
Ahhh, now you not only know what Left wanted to say
Liar.
I can't tell what the hell that means...

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:57 PM
He stated OUR own hands.

Now you want us to interpret what he meant and not what he actually posted. Hmmm:

What jAZ thought Lefty_the_Pervert type
or
What Lefty actually typed?

Which should I believe?

How droll after all the truth from the press posts you have created. Obviously, you don't hold yourself or your friends to the same standards you hold others.
The only thing we know for sure is that he never said what you claimed.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:04 PM
Liar.
One quote out of several? Actually you have lied three times on this thread alone. No wonder you are defending him. You are taking the same tact

#1. "The only person her refered to was not himself or you... but "they". He referred to himself when he said "our". Our is a pronoun referring to ownership by self and others. You deliberately overlooked his statement and flat out lied with the quote above.

#2.you KNOW for a FACT that if the roles were reversed, you would be making the EXACT SAME point. Unless you have some proof to that effect, this is another blatant lie. If you would like me to post the definition of fact, I can.

A shame you have demeaned yourself even lower to the point that you are defending perverts.

#3. Then you have the nerve to call me a liar when you stupidly state "I looked again after your characterization and saw that the "y" was missing... " Obviously you do know what you believe he was typing or you wouldn't have made such a statement. How do you know the "y" was missing if you don't know what he meant?

It is best if you refraining from falsehoods before you claim others for doing so. It is even better if you aren't defending perverts when doing so.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:05 PM
Wolfie, the thing that probably pisses you off the most about this discussion is that you KNOW for a FACT that if the roles were reversed, you would be making the EXACT SAME point.
Hits close to home, huh Wolfie?

ROFL

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:05 PM
The only thing we know for sure is that he never said what you claimed.
Lie #4.

Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

Obviously he did unless you can state with a straight face that I did not quote him accurately.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:06 PM
Hits close to home, huh Wolfie?

ROFL
I don't know, I have never offered to hold a johnson, have you?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:06 PM
One quote out of several? Actually you have lied three times on this thread alone. No wonder you are defending him. You are taking the same tact

#1. . He referred to himself when he said "our". Our is a pronoun referring to ownership by self and others. You deliberately overlooked his statement and flat out lied with the quote above.

#2. Unless you have some proof to that effect, this is another blatant lie. If you would like me to post the definition of fact, I can.

A shame you have demeaned yourself even lower to the point that you are defending perverts.

#3. Then you have the nerve to call me a liar when you stupidly state "I looked again after your characterization and saw that the "y" was missing... " Obviously you do know what you believe he was typing or you wouldn't have made such a statement. How do you know the "y" was missing if you don't know what he meant?

It is best if you refraining from falsehoods before you claim others for doing so. It is even better if you aren't defending perverts when doing so.
Sucks, that you can't find a quote that says "my" doesn't it? Life would be easier, if only... huh?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:07 PM
Sucks, that you can't find a quote that says "my" doesn't it? Life would be easier, if only... huh?
Only if you are a complete idiot or liar and don't know the meaning of "our".

Perhaps next you can tell us what "is" means?

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:10 PM
Obviously he did unless you can state with a straight face that I did not quote him accurately.
I can say with a straight face, that I read it to say "your", and I suspect it was a typo. I can also say with a straight face that it doesn't say "my".

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:12 PM
I can say with a straight face, that I read it to say "your", and I suspect it was a typo. I can also say with a straight face that it doesn't say "my".
Ahhh, so you do know what he meant when you said you didn't? Damn, that really screws you over doesn't it?


Now to the post itself. Why would someone remove my penis with my own hands? How would they do so? The post makes no sense in that context. You are losing ground by the second defending with such a lame statement.

stevieray
02-20-2005, 08:14 PM
Ahhh, so you do know what he meant when you said you didn't? Damn, that really screws you over doesn't it?


Now to the post itself. Why would someone remove my penis with my own hands? How would they do so? The post makes no sense in that context. You are losing ground by the second defending with such a lame statement.

give it up, he's role playing.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:16 PM
know
suspect

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:18 PM
suspect
No small wonder you praise the last admin, you are living the deny deny deny mentality.
No, I can't tell what the hell that means...

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:18 PM
Now to the post itself. Why would someone remove my penis with my own hands? How would they do so? The post makes no sense in that context. You are losing ground by the second defending with such a lame statement.
It makes no more or less sense that if you put "our" in there. That's why I said I don't know what the hell he meant.

I'm not disputing that he could have meant what you thought. But you can't seem to accept that it could have easily been a typo.

Why any of this is worth debating, I'm not sure.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:20 PM
It makes no more or less sense that if you put "our" in there. That's why I said I don't know what the hell he meant.

I'm not disputing that he could have meant what you thought. But you can't seem to accept that it could have easily been a typo.

Why any of this is worth debating, I'm not sure.
It makes no sense with "your" either. Since it makes no sense with the word you decided to plug in out of thin air, I think I will go with his freudian slip and what he actually posted instead of your lame cover your ass interpretation of what you thought it might be.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:23 PM
It makes no sense with "your" either.
While it makes almost no sense with "your" it makes some sense... he was suggesting that you were the one holding your "member"... No?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:25 PM
While it makes almost no sense with "your" it makes some sense... he was suggesting that you were the one holding your "member"... No?
Again, your lame cover your ass interpretation or what he actually posted?

I think I will go with what he posted.


Nice try, Mr. Clinton, but we have a standing definition of "is".

jAZ
02-20-2005, 08:28 PM
I think I will go with what he posted.
Why not just ask him WTF he was talking about? Kinda clear up the mystery.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:30 PM
Why not just ask him WTF he was talking about? Kinda clear up the mystery.
It should, but he ran after he posted and you certainly have created an out for him, haven't you?

He has already shown himself to be of low character and can't even own up to a simple bet. I have no desire to ask him anything. I will just gladly point out when he does stupid things like this one.

Taco John
02-20-2005, 09:28 PM
Yeah, thank goodness we live in a nation where the government can think for us and invest our hard earned dollars as they see fit so they can dole out an exponentially smaller amount in our retirement.

There's some quality planning!



ROFL

Yeah, thank goodness we live in a nation where the government can think for us and invent WMD "evidence" and use our hard earned dollars as they see fit so they can dole out no-bid contracts to companies they have stake in.

There's some quality planning!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 09:49 PM
ROFL
I said the second quote? Can you link? Or is this another silly analogy that has no point to the original statement made?

Taco John
02-20-2005, 10:15 PM
I said the second quote? Can you link? Or is this another silly analogy that has no point to the original statement made?



Ok. I'll admit... I pulled a Baby Lee. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything... Except a show of how flimsy your "standards" are.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:16 PM
Ok. I'll admit... I pulled a Baby Lee. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything... Except a show of how flimsy your "standards" are.
Oh, I guess.

Seems to be a pretty stupid way to do it, but if that's how you get your rocks off, more power to you.

Taco John
02-20-2005, 10:16 PM
Or wait... If I were like you, I'd lie and say that you've said that several times on this board.

ROFL

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:20 PM
Or wait... If I were like you, I'd lie and say that you've said that several times on this board.

ROFL
If I were like you, I would storm off with that statement and swear I was never coming back.

ROFL ROFL

Taco John
02-20-2005, 10:25 PM
If I were like you, I would storm off with that statement and swear I was never coming back.

ROFL ROFL


Why? I didn't abuse any mod powers by making that statement. No threads were locked and closed when I posted that statement.

The man who threatened to shoot me in the face if he ever saw me called my mom a mexican prostitute, and you punished me for it you doofus. Of course I was pissed. And a lot of other people were unimpressed by the way you handled the situation and commented as such. I'm unmoved by the jokes you make about it, because I'm able to throw your predjudiced hypcorisy back in your stupid face. I look at it as an opportunity to once again set the record straight.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:28 PM
Why? I didn't abuse any mod powers by making that statement. No threads were locked and closed when I posted that statement.

The man who threatened to shoot me in the face if he ever saw me called my mom a mexican prostitute, and you punished me for it you doofus. Of course I was pissed. And a lot of other people were unimpressed by the way you handled the situation and commented as such. I'm unmoved by the jokes you make about it, because I'm able to throw your predjudiced hypcorisy back in your stupid face. I look at it as an opportunity.

Ahh, I hurt his feelings.

I never punished anyone. As far as your offended friends, big deal. I don't moderate per their wishes, I do so per the BB owner and other mods.

At least I know what buttons to push to make you rant, that is what's important here.

Taco John
02-20-2005, 10:32 PM
At least I know what buttons to push to make you rant, that is what's important here.


Exactly. "Lock this thread" is the one. You punished me with it for complaining about the harassment I was getting. The button you pushed was "Lock this thread." It worked. I got pissed.

|Zach|
02-20-2005, 10:34 PM
At least I know what buttons to push to make you rant, that is what's important here.
I don't see how thats hard to pull off with any regulars esp those active on the political side off the board...

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:34 PM
Exactly. "Lock this thread" is the one. You punished me with it for complaining about the harassment I was getting. The button you pushed was "Lock this thread." It worked. I got pissed.
Thanks. I take pride in my work.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:35 PM
I don't see how thats hard to pull off with any regulars esp those active on the political side off the board...
True dat

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by KCWolfman
If I were like you, I would storm off with that statement and swear I was never coming back.
Why? I didn't abuse any mod powers by making that statement. No threads were locked and closed when I posted that statement.

The man who threatened to shoot me in the face if he ever saw me called my mom a mexican prostitute, and you punished me for it you doofus. Of course I was pissed. And a lot of other people were unimpressed by the way you handled the situation and commented as such. I'm unmoved by the jokes you make about it, because I'm able to throw your predjudiced hypcorisy back in your stupid face. I look at it as an opportunity to once again set the record straight.

Wow, KC, this really bring our earlier conversation into sharp relief, doesn't it?

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 01:13 AM
By the way KC, it was supposed to be "your".

You would have to be an idiot to read it any other way.

And you aren't an idiot.
Are you?

(Thanks for the support jAZ, typing on mom's laptop sucks when I'm putting on my clown makeup..)
(I hope that wasn't more lost irony...)

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 04:43 PM
By the way KC, it was supposed to be "your".

You would have to be an idiot to read it any other way.



Really, thanks. Now since I am so dense, explain the following sentence to me in detail as I can't understand how someone would take away my "soldier" with my own hands.


It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with our own hands!

Changed to:
It's as good thing that you're little soldier is so small.
Otherwise they would have realized what you were doing and taken it from you with your own hands!

Again, how can someone else take away my penis with my own hands? Seems to me you had a freudian slip and decided to take matters into "your own hands".

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 05:27 PM
Looks like you "got" me, Ring.

I guess I was so excited at the thought of you playing with yourself in a kiddie pool that I lost control of the keyboard, and in the future, I will make sure to type as slowly as I can, and keep my thoughts coherent.


Thanks for pointing out my error.
I will do the same for you in the future.