Bullshit. Lots of us do. We’re just not here when the argument reaches the 30th page so you don’t see us. Out of sight, out of mind.
I hate this board’s penchant for arguing until everyone is sick unto death of whatever the topic was, actually.
No, you don’t. 
Fair enough. I’ll say it came from Rbicker
Yeah. I’ll make my point in two or three posts in a thread, and then, you know what, fuck it, I’ve made my point.
That said, Miller has his own point. There are an awful lot of posters here fully willing to engage trolls and idiots to an extent that is beyond believable. Even the threads I’ve posted in, once they get beyond 3 or 5 pages, I don’t even read as a rule. It’s just going to be the same bullshit, over and over and over and over and over. . .
FOX News supports the woman. Of course.
That’s not why they’re stupid though. That’s how everything works, even when you do get every penny back of your own money, like at a bank.
Maybe she was lecturing him about having a child when he can only support that child with public funds.
I swear, people act like the instant someone becomes poor they need to surrender their children to the Local Child Shelter for adoption by someone else, like they’re an unwanted pet. :rolleyes:
Look, idiot, I was just trying to divine the thoughts of the women in the video, since they were very unclear, you presumptuous dolt. The child in the video appears several years old, so it’s unlikely he was born under the current conditions the father finds himself.
Chill out - that wasn’t directed at you, that was directed at people such as the woman in the video. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, but it is 5 am here and I’m still working through my first cup of caffeine. Yeah, I got that that wasn’t your thoughts, you were trying to “divine the thoughts of the women in the video”.
Some of the poverty-bashers don’t seem to grok that getting help to feed the children you have and are responsible for is better than letting them starve because you’re too proud (or whatever) to accept public help.
I’m sorry. Entirely my fault. I misread your post and acted like a petulant ass. Since you used the excuse of early morning, I’m using the excuse of being drunk, which I am. Soryy.
Totally OK, no hard feelings (OMG! A cease-fire in the Pit!)
And I say that the practice of letting lawyers defecate in the courthouse with janitors forbidden to tidy up is not sustainable.
This has much in common with your claim — Neither of them is factual.
With right-wing falsities and confusions being the rule rather than exception, I’m sorry if you (incorrectly) inferred that I was attributing extra stupidities to you. IIRC it is you, not I, that delights in employing “syllogisms” like:
(1) Brickhead believes lots of stupid ideas.
(2) XYZ is a stupid idea.
(3) Therefore Brickhead believes XYZ.
Sigh. We’ve been around and around and around on this before. I see you as fundamentally sincere and intelligent. If you weren’t so stubborn you could get a handle on this.
Yes, self-debt is useless paper. The SocSec bonds could be torn up and burned and the net financial situation of {U.S. Government Plus SocSec} would not change.
BUT … that does not support the faulty conclusions some people draw. To understand that, best may be to ponder some simple questions. Let’s start with
(1) If SocSec invested its surplus in Japanese government bonds instead of U.S. government bonds, how would that effect the financial status of U.S. government and SocSec?
The last time we discussed this, and the time before, you refused to ponder such a question because it was hypothetical. That’s the path of stubbornness, not learning.
Clarity is not your strong suit.
(Do you HAVE a strong suit? Does some deluded employer somewhere actually pay you money for some valuable service you know how to do? The mind boggles at the image, but I suppose in a world where Honey Boo Boo earns money, anything is possible.)
That aside, it’s not clear to me from the foregoing what specific claim of mine is untrue. I see two possibilities, and of course I could be missing something.
(A) My claim that the current Social Security scheme is not indefinitely sustainable is false; or
(B) My claim that the current Social Security scheme is not indefinitely sustainable is true, but represents a strawman argument: that is, no one is arguing it’s indefinitely sustainable and my bringing that claim up is attacking an argument never made by any serious defense of the system.
Care to enlighten me?
Just like there’s no crying in baseball, there are no cease-fires in the pit.
Oh My God. Are you this obtuse when you’re trying to get your customers out of the drunk tank? The claim you now pretend you made is not the claim you made.
You wrote
I’ve placed the parts of this peculiar sentence into a hierarchy by using variable fonts. Let me lead you by the hand and see if you even understand your own detritus.
Let’s start with the word every. Do you know what this word means? Would you like to replace it before we proceed?
For one thing, the bookkeeping involved in all the payouts to people who die after starting to work but before they retire is a real pain in the ass.
No, they couldn’t. The US government is not allowed to repudiate their debts.
You are aware, I hope, that this is indeed a hypothetical. Because the US government did not invest its surplus in Japanese government bonds. They spent the money.
Regards,
Shodan
The U.S. can certainly repudiate debt to ITSELF. But it was a HYPOTHETICAL, to demonstrate the point that transfers within government net to zero.
Yeah, he said it was a hypothetical.
So that means you consider it as if it would happen, even if it didn’t or won’t.