manhattan: losing touch with reality, and following in Lib's cryptic footsteps

[Liberal]

@elucidator

Manny is a defrocked moderator. He is accorded privileges quite beyond us groundlings.

Accorded by whom? Is it Gaudere? Is it Lynn? Is it a conspiracy? Who is responsible for the policy of according special privileges to Manhattan? And if you believe that, why do you post here? Are there other services you buy that have a policy of treating other customers who paid the same better than you?

[Gaudere]

Just so I’m clear on things, it’s okay if I infer in GD that someone may be an idiot as long as that inference is supposedly clinical?

You can infer that people are idiots all you like. Even in MPSIMS!

Where did manhattan get away with anything? He, RT and pantom(?) were all told to take it to the Pit. None of 'em were posting the way they should, IMHO.

[FinnAgain]

Lib, something is screwey in GD is Manny can call someone an idiot as long as he includes the word clinical.

Why do you think that’s ok in GD for him but not anybody else? Or is that the new rule in GD? You can flame people to your heart’s content, just include the word ‘clinical’? I mean… I know that snark can run wild in GD sometimes, but this is ridiculous.

[FinnAgain]

@Gaudere

You can infer that people are idiots all you like. Even in MPSIMS!

Come on Gaudere!

“In order for someone to make such an argument Gaudere, they must either be a liar or someone who, clinically, has been diagnosed with the desire to rape puppies and kill nuns.”

Is it just that Manny’s insult was ‘veiled’ enough to let it slide? Are inferences now legal in GD?

“From your posting, I can only assume that you are, clinically, retarted.”

That’s okay now?

[Gaudere]

I’m telling you, you can infer all you like! Really! I myself have frequently inferred that people were idiots in GD.

[Gaudere]

(All right, I guess I will stop teasing and admit that infer is sometimes used to mean “imply” instead of its main usage “to conclude from evidence”. No, you’re not allowed to imply that blatantly that someone is stupid.)

[FinnAgain]

@Gaudere

I’m telling you, you can infer all you like! Really! I myself have frequently inferred that people were idiots in GD.

I’m honestly not trying to be disrespectful Gaudere, I think that the Mods and Admins do a great job and I have a lot of admiration for all of you. But…

Are you fucking kidding me???

Flaming and direct personal insults are now legal in GD as long as one ‘infers’ them? So all you have to do when you call another poster a goat felcher is to say 'I assume that you must be someone who loves felching goats" or “from what we’ve seen of you, you must be a rabid goat felcher.” ? This is just a stupid loophole!

I will admit, GD’ers have, in large numbers, discovered how to flame-without-flaming and walk along the edge of snark… but this is just silly. What purpose is there in Pitting someone if everything you can say in the Pit, you can say in GD as long as you include something about it being your opinion or inference?

~sighs~ [standard disclaimer] It is your forum and your boards and you can do whatever you want, and ultimately I will enjoy my time here and still respect the Mods and Admins. But I still think you’re doing something wrong. [/disclaimer]

[Purd_Werfect]

Looking closer at the thread in question, all of the assmonkeys were told to head off to the pit by Gaudere.

I still am not clear on the whole inference thing. Until such a time as I am, I will refer to all of you as the sweetest, kindest, and brightest people the world has ever seen, just so I can remain on the side of safety.

[FinnAgain]

[Zim] Damn you simupost! Damn youuuuuu! [/Zim]

@Gaudere

(All right, I guess I will stop teasing and admit that infer is sometimes used to mean “imply” instead of its main usage “to conclude from evidence”. No, you’re not allowed to imply that blatantly that someone is stupid.)

Now I feel stupid.
~hangs head in shame~

I have been whooshed by Gaudere! I must slit my belly to atone…
Ahem.

But, still… even if all evidence points to a poster being a moron, you can call them that in GD as long as it’s a ‘clinical’ diagnosis? The next time Poster X says something stupid, I could say “from your posting habits we could conclude that you are, clinically, a brainless hack with an agenda.”

I dunno Gaudere, I grok wrongness… but remain the SDMB’s faithful Finn.
~escapes~

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

I’m just stunned at how outraged you are about this. I oppose Bush’s plans for SS, and I think he is trying to hype the danger, but he has never said that Social Security will collapse in 2018, which is what you seem to be drawing from his statements.

Not in so many words. But when A==>B, and you say A, then you may not have said B, but only in a very technical, hairsplitting sense.

“When I talk about a Social Security trust going bankrupt in 2042, there is enough money in the system to take care of the promises for those who have retired, and those who are near retirement. That’s a fact. We can argue about a lot of other issues, but one fact is certain: Social Security is in good shape and will meet its promises to those who’ve retired, or nearly retired.” Feb 4

Does he say there’s enough money there to pay everyone’s promised benefits until 2042? No, he doesn’t. What he says, instead, is this:

So, like, for example, in 2027, the amount of money required for the government to come up with to meet the promises is $200 billion above the payroll taxes collected. And some 13 years later, the system is broke. In other words, in 2042, it is flat bust. So, because more people are receiving higher benefits and living longer with fewer people paying into the system, the system goes into the red in a pretty short order. And every year it gets worse – $200 billion in 2027, about $300 billion in 2032. And so it just accumulates. And if we wait, it gets worse. In other words, it’s more costly to solve the problem. So we have a problem.

What’s the message here? “We’ll have to find a way to pay it, so we’d better repeal my tax cuts now so we can do so”? Or is it, “Golly, can we actually afford to make the payments that are coming up?”?

And more fundamentally, what are the “promises” that he’s talking about? Promised benefits, or promised repayment of Treasury instruments?

Same idea for your SOTU quote.

“In 2018, 13 years down the road, it starts to go negative. … So that by the year 2027, the government is going to have to come up with $200 billion additional above and beyond the payroll taxes to meet promises – and greater the next year, and greater the next year; $300 billion in 2037, until 2042, it’s broke. And that’s the dilemma we’re faced with.” Feb 10

And he also says:

Now, one of the myths about Social Security is there’s a pile of money sitting there accumulating, because you put money in, the government saves it for you, and then when you retire you get it out. That’s not the way the system works. Every dime that goes in from payroll taxes is spent. It’s spent on retirees, and if there’s excess, it’s spent on government programs. The only thing that Social Security has is a pile of IOUs from one part of government to the next. This is a pay-as-you-go system.

Short version: there’s no money there; there’s only IOUs.

Now tell me (and here we get back into my response to Shodan): has Bush said, “There’s not money in the Trust Fund, but what’s there is still worth $1.5 trillion”? No, he hasn’t. He’s said there’s a “pile of IOUs” - contrasting that from the “pile of money”.

So what’s the message? Pile of money = good; pile of IOUs = bad.

Why are IOUs bad, if they’re worth the same as money? If they’re worth the same as money, they’re not bad. So Bush’s message is, those IOUs are not worth the same as money.

But not once have I seen Bush allude to anything to the tune that the securities in the trust fund lose their value in 2018; what he’s trying to say in simple language is that we’re going to have to buy them back in 2018.

“There is no trust” is a funny way of saying that. It says, as does the rest of the language from that same passage, that the securities in the trust fund don’t lose their value in 2018 because there’s no trust fund in the first place to have value. “The money’s spent” is another good way of saying there’s nothing there. (Buy what back? If there’s no trust, and the money’s been spent, there’s nothing to buy.)

I really don’t understand how you’ve managed to get your panties in such a twist about someone calling you on your bullshit re-interpretation of Bush’s statements. Just build a bridge and get over it.

Nope, still don’t see where he’s talked about the Trust Fund obligations as something that will be honored, should the SocSec laws remain unchanged.

[elucidator]

@Liberal

… Are there other services you buy that have a policy of treating other customers who paid the same better than you?

Sure. For instance, I pay taxes…

[FinnAgain]

Elucidator you are horrible, I think I love you

[Liberal]

Finn, for me it’s pretty easy to keep straight if you just associate infer with inference, and imply with implication — an inference is drawn from an implication.

[FinnAgain]

Just curious, but is there any reason to choose not to bold other Dopers names?

@Liberal

Finn, for me it’s pretty easy to keep straight if you just associate infer with inference, and imply with implication — an inference is drawn from an implication.

I do associate them thar word thangs together, dun help me none.

I don’t quite understand the need for this semantic nit picking. I can infer that due to the implications of someone’s behavior, they’re a troll. But I can’t do it on the SDMB. Likewise, I can infer that someone is totally an idiot, but I thought I couldn’t say that in GD.

Live and learn.

[RTFirefly]

@Gaudere

You can infer that people are idiots all you like. Even in MPSIMS!

Where did manhattan get away with anything? He, RT and pantom(?) were all told to take it to the Pit.

And here we are.

I agree that none of us got away with anything in this instance. Whatever may be claimed about manny getting special treatment (as I have in the past), I can’t see how one can make such a claim on the basis of the preceding thread.

[Liberal]

@elucidator

Sure. For instance, I pay taxes…

Taxes are to subscriptions as deafness is to ear plugs. You’re free to remove yours.

[Liberal]

@FinnAgain

Just curious, but is there any reason to choose not to bold other Dopers names?

I didn’t know I needed a reason, or that it is a choice. I just don’t. Any reason you choose not to put their names in red?

I do associate them thar word thangs together, dun help me none.

Okay…

I don’t quite understand the need for this semantic nit picking. I can infer that due to the implications of someone’s behavior, they’re a troll. But I can’t do it on the SDMB. Likewise, I can infer that someone is totally an idiot, but I thought I couldn’t say that in GD.

You can infer all you want. You just can’t imply. But I’m afraid that if we’ve gotten to the point that we may use opposites as synonyms, then the phrase “semantic nit picking” has come to mean “writing words.”

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

Well, it’s hard to ‘back off’ a claim I never made, but no, I don’t think that Bush is questioning the validity of the national debt in general. Never said it, never thought it.

You are making it progressively harder to believe that you are doing anything but deliberately lying.

The title of the thread was George W. Bush, Oathbreaker. Note the absence of a question mark - this was an unambigous accusation.

@RTFirefly

The Fourteenth Amendment has something specific to say about that sort of suggestion:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Dunno if this edict applies just to government officials in the course of their duties (which would make sense) or to everybody, anytime (which wouldn’t, IMHO), but either way, it applies to George W. Bush as he exercises his Constitutional duty of giving the State of the Union speech.

You said it here. Now you are saying you didn’t.

Look, you don’t have any credibility left on the topic. So what you claim he “really” means doesn’t make any impression. If you can’t be trusted on the subject, then there is no reason to believe that you are accurately representing Bush’s thoughts either.

@RTFirefly

Look, there’s a difference - and most people are quite clear on this - between these two things: (1) my spending a pile of money I got; and (2) my loaning the money to a creditworthy entity via an instrument with a specific interest rate and maturity date. (1) means the money’s gone; (2) means that for all practical purposes, I still have that pile of money - because the instrument I have is worth that money. It’s an asset that represents money, and it’s customary in this society to consider those things equivalent, unless and until there is nontrivial risk involved - unless there is doubt as to whether I’ll ever be able to redeem my note at face value.

Bush is using the language of (1). If what he really means is (2), that’s not his plain meaning. Maybe he’s leaving enough wiggle room so he can later, if called for, weasel out and say he really meant (2), but that’s not his plain meaning.

That is his plain meaning, you fucking moron, because you have never produced a single solitary scrap of evidence that Bush has ever questioned that the IOUs that constitute 100% of the “trust fund” will be redeemed. He has never stated or implied this. All your ridiculously strained attempts at convincing us that he has are utter horsehit.

No reasonable person can construe “we have to meet these commitments” as “we aren’t going to meet these commitments”. If you are going to construe it that way, it means only that you are not a reasonable person.

It’s too bad. Because this is apparently the best that the liberals can come up with to oppose the Bush plan to reform Social Security, and if there are any serious flaws in the Bush plan, no one reasonable is going to listen because you will have blown your credibility with these ridiculous misrepresentations.

If that’s how you carry out the roll of Loyal Opposition, then the Republicans need a better class of enemy.

Regards,
Shodan

[FinnAgain]

@Liberal

I didn’t know I needed a reason, or that it is a choice. I just don’t. Any reason you choose not to put their names in red?

Jeez, you’ve been here this long and you’ve not realized that it’s a polite Doper convention to bold the names of other posters out of respect? Are you serious?

@Liberal

You can infer all you want. You just can’t imply. But I’m afraid that if we’ve gotten to the point that we may use opposites as synonyms, then the phrase “semantic nit picking” has come to mean “writing words.”

Yes Lib you are pickin’ them semantic nits like a chimp on a grooming binge.

What happens when you voice an inference on a public message board? Why, you make an implication! What’re the odds?

[manhattan]

@Maeglin

For the record, you all might find this very interesting .

From the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

This report from CEPR is dated July 23, 2001. Apparently even four years ago, it was suggested by the Bush administration that the government might default on these bonds. The CEPR report is obviously tendentious. Nevertheless, the idea that the United States might default on this obligation is not new.

I don’t really have any explanation for or understanding of that – I guess I may have to conclude that it’s true that people scaremongering over the prospect is not new. But Here’s the interim report (and here’s the final, for reference). Neither report discusses defaulting on the inter-government securities (indeed, one of the “guiding principles” the President charged the commission with respecting was “(t)he entire Social Security surplus must be dedicated only to Social Security”). Additionally, the interim report was issued in August 2001 (Heh. How much attention you think that got? Right down the memory hole with Chandra Levy.) so it’s difficult to understand how the CEPR piece, in July, opines on it.