LP Hypocrisy [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : LP Hypocrisy


G-19
06-26-2012, 03:29
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-social-security_n_1612117.html?flv=1



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html


:whistling:

Chronos
06-26-2012, 04:06
I don't remember RP or AR ever saying it was wrong for individuals to try to recover stolen (taxed) income by means of existing government programs. If they did take such a position, then you'd definitely have some hypocrisy to point to and I'd agree 100% with you. I simply doubt you'll be able to produce anything resembling that.

Heck, I'm an anarcho-capitalist (meaning I think markets are more moral and more efficient than government, and should replace it entirely), and even I think you're morally justified in trying to recover losses inflicted by the government if they'll hand you some of your money back.

Fed Five Oh
06-26-2012, 05:31
Too funny.

Cavalry Doc
06-26-2012, 05:55
VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do."


Sounds a lot like the excuse used for spending that was not Constitutionally mandated.

JBnTX
06-26-2012, 06:21
Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional


I don't like Ron Paul and I don't think the government should be in the retirement business, BUT Ron Paul has a right to his Social Security check, regardless of how much money he makes now.

The government took that money from him all through his working life, with the promise of a retirement check.

He's entitled to that money just as much as the poorest person in America is.

Don't like it? Then the government should get out of the retirement business and quit making promises they can't keep.

..

certifiedfunds
06-26-2012, 06:53
OP is still trollin' I see.

I disagree with Paul here.

G-19
06-26-2012, 14:33
OP is still trollin' I see.

I disagree with Paul here.

So now trolling means pointing out that the LP party practices a "do as I say not as I do" approach to just about everything. If that is what it means I guess I am trolling.

Time and time again Certified Funds and other Paulbots have referred to those on SS as stealing from tax payers, some even claimed it was at gun point. I was just pointing out that Ron was one of those willfully stealing from the tax payers. If RP was such a man of principal then he would decline the money. The Paulites have been quick to claim SS taxes are just a tax and not a retirement fund, but now that Ronnie is getting it they claim he has a right to it. Seems like talking out both sides of their mouth to me. How does this type of hypocrisy differ from what the Republicans and Democrats do?

It seems to me that if the Paulites do not agree with Paul collecting SS, then they would be hypocrites if they continue to support his bid for the WH. If they continue to support him they are saying it is ok for him to not live up to a standard they want everyone else to live up to.

But then again, I am just trolling for pointing it out.

G-19
06-26-2012, 14:41
Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional


I don't like Ron Paul and I don't think the government should be in the retirement business, BUT Ron Paul has a right to his Social Security check, regardless of how much money he makes now.

The government took that money from him all through his working life, with the promise of a retirement check.

He's entitled to that money just as much as the poorest person in America is.

Don't like it? Then the government should get out of the retirement business and quit making promises they can't keep.

..

I agree, if someone works their whole life and pays into it, they are ENTITLED to it when the time comes.

Chronos
06-26-2012, 14:42
So now trolling means pointing out that the LP party practices a "do as I say not as I do" approach to just about everything. If that is what it mean I guess I am trolling.

Time and time again Certified Funds has referred to those on SS as stealing from tax payers, even claimed it was at gun point. I was just pointing out that Ron was one of those willfully stealing from the tax payers. If RP was such a man of principal then he would decline the money. The Paulites have been quick to claim SS taxes are just a tax and not a retirement fund, but now that Ronnie is getting it they claim he has a right to it. Seems like talking out both sides of their mouth to me. How does this type of hypocrisy differ from what the Republicans and Democrats do?

But then again, I am just trolling for pointing it out.

Edited to add: I firmly believe Paul has a right to claim SS, just as every other person who paid into it has a right to claim it.

There is no "right to SS" -- such a thing simply doesn't exist. But there is nothing wrong or hypocritical with trying to reclaim what has been stolen from you, while you still have a chance to get it.

Others (not RP) may have taken a much stronger position that an individual choosing to accept repayment is wrong -- and for those people, personally accepting repayment would be hypocritical. But you have yet to produce any examples of those people.

Chronos
06-26-2012, 14:44
I agree, if someone works their whole life and pays into it, they are ENTITLED to it when the time comes.

Are you *entitled* to be repayed from a Ponzi scheme that collapses?

G-19
06-26-2012, 14:49
Are you *entitled* to be repayed from a Ponzi scheme that collapses?

Difference in a Ponzi scheme and SS is that you did not willfully invest into SS. If you willfully invest in something that turns out to be a Ponzi scheme, tough luck.

G-19
06-26-2012, 14:52
There is no "right to SS" -- such a thing simply doesn't exist. But there is nothing wrong or hypocritical with trying to reclaim what has been stolen from you, while you still have a chance to get it.

Others (not RP) may have taken a much stronger position that an individual choosing to accept repayment is wrong -- and for those people, personally accepting repayment would be hypocritical. But you have yet to produce any examples of those people.

You actually miss the point. I am more interested in the hypocrisy of the LP supporting someone who does not actually believe/support the LP platform since SS is one of the chief complaints I have heard on here from them.

G-19
06-26-2012, 15:02
First let me say I agree with what another poster said, I am not a Romneybot, I am a " anyone but Obamabot".

I am accused of trolling for pointing out something about RP, but go back and look how many anti-Romney posts there are that have been posted by LPers. I guess they are just trolls also.

JBnTX
06-26-2012, 15:07
... but go back and look how many anti-Romney posts there are that have been posted by LPers. I guess they are just trolls also.


No, they're Obama supporters.

G-19
06-26-2012, 15:08
No, they're Obama supporters.

Maybe it is just another case of it is ok for me, but not you.

ChuteTheMall
06-26-2012, 15:43
Ten million dollars in shrimp earmarks placed by career congressman Ron Paul. Eight million dollars for marketing plus two million dollars for research.
Did the founding fathers anticipate this?

"Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sauté it. There's, um, shrimp kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo, pan fried, deep fried, stir fried. There's pineapple shrimp and lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp in potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That's, that's about it."


:music:
Wild shrimp!
I am your pork pimp!
I'll make federal funds ... easy!
Wild shrimp!

Wild shrimp, I want to pimp you
But I gotta know for sure.
Will eight mil be enough?
You need it...

Wild shrimp!
My values go limp!
I'm just an earmark pimp
For my wild shrimp!

http://i49.tinypic.com/15zjaxw.jpg

G-19
06-26-2012, 15:48
I am waiting on the "You must hate the COTUS/Freedom" response.

wprebeck
06-26-2012, 16:24
I am waiting on the "You must hate the COTUS/Freedom" response.

You hate freedom, the Constitution, puppies, apple pie, baseball, and hot dogs. And HK hates you, because you're not an operator. :tongueout:

G-19
06-26-2012, 16:34
You hate freedom, the Constitution, puppies, apple pie, baseball, and hot dogs. And HK hates you, because you're not an operator. :tongueout:

Haha.

wprebeck
06-26-2012, 16:37
You know we're in the same line of work, right? I'm local, not state, though.

G-19
06-26-2012, 16:45
You know we're in the same line of work, right? I'm local, not state, though.

County?

Now that you have admitted this, you will now be told how worthless you are by several of the LP crowd here on GTPI. Just a step above crack-head welfare recipients.

wprebeck
06-26-2012, 16:55
County?

Now that you have admitted this, you will now be told how worthless you are by several of the LP crowd here on GTPI. Just a step above crack-head welfare recipients.

Been there, done that. Nothing like being told how the world works by rich folks who only see crackheads on TV, and not know them on a first name basis.

G-19
06-26-2012, 16:58
Been there, done that. Nothing like being told how the world works by rich folks who only see crackheads on TV, and not know them on a first name basis.

Their whole opinion of life comes from TV.

RC-RAMIE
06-26-2012, 17:01
How about LP that have LEO experience? You do know LP still believe in laws and even people going to jail it's is the government worker who argues for more laws over their fellow man so that job will be more in demand we find disgusting.


....

PawDog
06-26-2012, 17:16
How about LP that have LEO experience? You do know LP still believe in laws and even people going to jail it's is the government worker who argues for more laws over their fellow man so that job will be more in demand we find disgusting.
....

English isn't your first language is it? :dunno: What, exactly are you attempting to convey with this odd diatribe?

chickenwing
06-26-2012, 17:24
:rofl:

G-19, I will bet you don't even know what Ron would do about SSI. I'm sure you'll probably call it anarchy or whatever. I'm guessing you have no idea that he wants to make SSI fiscally solvent while transitioning away from it, and allow young people to opt out if they want.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/ron-paul-collects-unconstitutional-social-security/Even though he wants younger generations to transition away from Social Security, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate says he receives checks.
“I do,” Paul acknowledged in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday. When The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein asked if Paul shouldn’t set an example by declining the government benefit, Paul said no.
“Just as I use the Post office, too, I use government highways, you do that too, I use the banks,” Paul said. “I use the Federal Reserve system, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t work to remove this. In the same way on Social Security, I am trying to make a transition. If I were 20 years old and was offered the chance, I’d jump at it, and the young people are jumping at it because they know this is not solvent.”Yeah, what a bunch of evil hypocrites.



If Ron and the libertarian party are so irrelevant, why do you feel the need to troll such a small group of crackpots? Did some poster hurt your feelings, and now you are butt hurt about it?

countrygun
06-26-2012, 17:40
If Ron and the libertarian party are so irrelevant, why do you feel the need to troll such a small group of crackpots? Did some poster hurt your feelings, and now you are butt hurt about it?

Nah, I'm sure it's the "Slinky Effect"


:supergrin:

chickenwing
06-26-2012, 17:47
Nah, I'm sure it's the "Slinky Effect"


:supergrin:

If you want to believe that have at it.

If RP supporters are Slinky's, what are Mitt supporters?

ChuteTheMall
06-26-2012, 17:51
English isn't your first language is it? :dunno: What, exactly are you attempting to convey with this odd diatribe?

I think he intended to pretend that libertarians could be cops just like normal people.
:headscratch:

countrygun
06-26-2012, 17:56
If you want to believe that have at it.

If RP supporters are Slinky's, what are Mitt supporters?

Voting for someone who could become President

Cavalry Doc
06-26-2012, 18:10
:rofl:

G-19, I will bet you don't even know what Ron would do about SSI. I'm sure you'll probably call it anarchy or whatever. I'm guessing you have no idea that he wants to make SSI fiscally solvent while transitioning away from it, and allow young people to opt out if they want.

Yeah, what a bunch of evil hypocrites.



If Ron and the libertarian party are so irrelevant, why do you feel the need to troll such a small group of crackpots? Did some poster hurt your feelings, and now you are butt hurt about it?

I think what people might find odd that he wants others to opt out of this unconstitutional program, but he opted in.

It doesn't make him evil. It just makes him imperfect. Not worthy of worship. A career politician that happens to tell a few tall tales and help himself and his buddies. Not one small bit worse than the rest of the career politicians.

wprebeck
06-26-2012, 18:21
I don't argue for more laws to keep people in jail so I can have a job, and you're retarded if you think that to be the case. People do a great job keeping themselves in jail. I just cited a shoplifter last night, got a guy on parole indicted for a felon in possession of a handgun today, and hooked a guy for assault after fighting him a couple of weeks ago. And that's just my off duty job.

What, precisely, is your LE experience? Mine is 12 years as a sworn officer at the largest county jail in my region.

countrygun
06-26-2012, 18:30
How about LP that have LEO experience? You do know LP still believe in laws and even people going to jail it's is the government worker who argues for more laws over their fellow man so that job will be more in demand we find disgusting.


....


Quick, find a label for me. I am not a Government worker, and I think we have way too many regulations on business, but what I have seen of my fellow citizens I am thinking we need MORE jails. There are some goofy and dangerous MFers out there. Especially those on "Legal" bath salts. We need laws to lock those "people" away. They are a very good reason to be glad we have the drug laws we have.

Now you may launch into the canned speech about why sober citizens should fear being eaten by their fellow citizens in the name of "Freedom":upeyes:

chickenwing
06-26-2012, 18:50
I think what people might find odd that he wants others to opt out of this unconstitutional program, but he opted in.

It doesn't make him evil. It just makes him imperfect. Not worthy of worship. A career politician that happens to tell a few tall tales and help himself and his buddies. Not one small bit worse than the rest of the career politicians.

You don't make any sense, when could he opt out or anyone else for that matter? And what's wrong with paying into SSI, receiving benefits, and wanting the program to be gradually phased away, and allowing young workers to opt out?

I don't find it odd at all. He did pay his SSI tax right? Does it make a difference, honestly, he had no say in the matter.

Are you saying he is a hypocrite because he paid his dues and wants young people to opt out?

What would be a hypocrite IMHO is telling young people to not opt out of SSI. It wont be around when they retire.

Nothing wrong with arguing that point, but that is not the intent of the OP.



Yes, we know. :yawn: Give it up dude. Ron's out. Vote for Mitt. Why so much focus on the guy not running anymore? Just asking. You sure devote a lot of time to starting threads about him. Oh yeah, some posters made you butt hurt is that it?



I'm not butt hurt my guy lost, but at least I have my reasons for supporting him, and he isn't even the reason I support a small government philosophy. But don't sit there and vote for a guy like Mitt because he isn't Barry and rub peoples face in the dirt for supporting Ron. Hell most of the posters here would be supporting him if he won the nomination, despite the fact that they can't stand him. What does that say about voting principles?

chickenwing
06-26-2012, 19:32
Voting for someone who could become President

That could be said about Barry voters, or any others. You win I guess.

Cavalry Doc
06-26-2012, 20:16
You don't make any sense, when could he opt out or anyone else for that matter?

Sorry, I stopped reading after one factual error.

He had to apply to SS benefits to receive them.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/applying8.htm


After that error, I figured the rest of what you said was useless. So, after being duly informed and edjumacated [sic], please try again.

:wavey:

G-19
06-26-2012, 21:15
:rofl:

G-19, I will bet you don't even know what Ron would do about SSI. I'm sure you'll probably call it anarchy or whatever. I'm guessing you have no idea that he wants to make SSI fiscally solvent while transitioning away from it, and allow young people to opt out if they want.

Yeah, what a bunch of evil hypocrites.



If Ron and the libertarian party are so irrelevant, why do you feel the need to troll such a small group of crackpots? Did some poster hurt your feelings, and now you are butt hurt about it?

Oh I understand perfectly what he wants to do. If you had bothered to read some of the posts in this thread, you would see that I said I felt he deserved to collect SS because he paid in to it. My posts were more directed to the hypocrisy of his supporters.

So let me try to explain this again. I will use small words for you. A lot of LP supporters have called people getting SS some really bad things in GTPI. Many of them even say that collecting SS is the same as stealing from their neighbors. Some even relate it to being robbed at gun point. Heck, Certified Funds even claimed to tell his inlaws they should be ashamed to face his kids because they were stealing from them by collecting SS. My question was how can they still support RP now that he admits to being one of those people stealing their money. To still support a person they would call a thief is hypocritical, is it not?

Now explain to me why when I post bad things about RP or the LP I am trolling, but when one of the LP crowd post numerous bad posts about Romney or Republicans it isn't trolling?

Is it because you are the one that really is butt hurt? First your guy loses, he only came in second because everyone else dropped out, most websites still show Santorum with more delegates. Then your so called secret delegate takeover strategy failed. Then Ron' own son did not even support him, because saving his political career was more important than standing on his principles. Then to find out Ol' Ronny is a thief using a gun to steal your money. I guess I can see why you are the one that is butt hurt.

After all the crap you LP (Losing Party) people have said to people over the last few months, you now want to play the victim. GROW UP!

Chronos
06-26-2012, 22:37
Sorry, I stopped reading after one factual error.

He had to apply to SS benefits to receive them.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/applying8.htm


After that error, I figured the rest of what you said was useless. So, after being duly informed and edjumacated [sic], please try again.

:wavey:

Let's put a libertarian in a hypothetical situation. Suppose our libertarian was forced to pay protection money to the mafia for 30 years in order to run his business. Then, one day, the mafia miraculously offers to give him back some % of what they took, if he sends in a written request to them.

Since the guy is a libertarian, he is of course opposed to the whole protection racket on basic ethical grounds, but do you find him to be full of hypocrisy if he sends in a written request to get some of his money back?

This isn't directed specifically at Cavalry Doc, as I don't believe he called anyone a hypocrit on this matter, but he did raise this particular issue of "applying" for SS benefits.

Chronos
06-26-2012, 22:52
Difference in a Ponzi scheme and SS is that you did not willfully invest into SS. If you willfully invest in something that turns out to be a Ponzi scheme, tough luck.

I agree with you that this is the most important difference -- SS is basically a Ponzi scheme that has been forced on you.

However, both a Ponzi scheme and SS collapse for the same fundamental reason -- they are reliant on an ever-expanding supply of new participants to fund those currently receiving payments.

Now, if the money is simply gone after some point (i.e. the collapse point of a Ponzi scheme), the only way to keep the checks flowing is by enacting even more force against the productive. This is fundamentally immoral, just as forcing a Ponzi scheme on people was immoral to begin with.

I think we're in agreement about the moral status of the people who started SS -- they were basically evil vote buyers. But you seem to think that victimhood morally justifies SS recipients to seek out and victimize the young to an even greater degree, in order to pay for a failing program that was in place long before the young worker was born. Is this your actual position, or did I miss something fundamental in there?

G-19
06-26-2012, 22:56
Chronos, My intention was not to argue the validity of SS, but to point out the hypocrisy of the LP still supporting Ron Paul. How can they justify their support after all they have said about and called people on SS?

Do a little searching and you will find a lot of examples of RP supporters really slamming those on SS, but yet they still support his run for the WH. I can't help but see that as hypocritical.

Chronos
06-26-2012, 23:10
Chronos, My intention was not to argue the validity of SS, but to point out the hypocrisy of the LP still supporting Ron Paul. How can they justify their support after all they have said about and called people on SS?

You're completely right that their position is not the same as RP's, if they are critical of people of people for applying for SS payments. I don't think this is the LP's official position, though -- the party doesn't say what people should do, the party is concerned with what government should not do.

I imagine you probably have some individuals in mind that I don't know about, though.

Anyway, I was wanting to know if I had characterized your moral position on SS correctly, but I understand if you don't want to talk about it.

G-19
06-26-2012, 23:26
You're completely right that their position is not the same as RP's, if they are critical of people of people for applying for SS payments. I don't think this is the LP's official position, though -- the party doesn't say what people should do, the party is concerned with what government should not do.

I imagine you probably have some individuals in mind that I don't know about, though.

Anyway, I was wanting to know if I had characterized your moral position on SS correctly, but I understand if you don't want to talk about it.

Since you asked nicely I will tell you my stance on SS.

I see SS as a good thing turned bad. On the surface it was a great idea. It in sured the elderly a way to afford to live in their latter years. However, the money ended up being used for things it was never intended to be used for. To many politicians saw it as a quick source of funds. This in turn ruined the fund and all but backrupted it.

Yes, things could be fixed to make it solvent. Raising retirement age is just one step that can go to fixing it. There are others.

If they want to allow people to opt out that is fine. If they want to eliminate it all together, fine. I say if it is to be eliminated then those that are currently recieving benefits get to keep them. Those that have at least 20 years of paying into SS, should be given the choice to keep paying and still get their benefits or have the choice of getting back all money paid in plus interest with no penalty to set up their own retirement. Those with less than 20 years of payments should be given their money back with interest and with no penalty and allowed to set up their own retirement. I also feel any interest money earned on a retirement plan should not be taxed at all, if not used before age 65. No, it may not reduce spending for a while, but eventually the savings would come.

Some of my points are not that far from the LP, but it is the approach of some of those here that really turned me against RP and the LP. It is a shame that those people really don't see how much they have hurt their own party. Now where I really differ from the LP is on their views of Social Issues and laws.

I have several years of paying into SS. I now work for a state agency and pay a healthy percentage of my check into a retirement plan and do not pay into SS anymore, So yes I would like my money back.

Cavalry Doc
06-27-2012, 04:29
Let's put a libertarian in a hypothetical situation. Suppose our libertarian was forced to pay protection money to the mafia for 30 years in order to run his business. Then, one day, the mafia miraculously offers to give him back some % of what they took, if he sends in a written request to them.

Since the guy is a libertarian, he is of course opposed to the whole protection racket on basic ethical grounds, but do you find him to be full of hypocrisy if he sends in a written request to get some of his money back?

This isn't directed specifically at Cavalry Doc, as I don't believe he called anyone a hypocrit on this matter, but he did raise this particular issue of "applying" for SS benefits.

Yeah, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Not to the level of hypocrisy, but a little inconsistent with his other opt outs. Didn't he opt out of the congressional pension?

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 05:41
Since you asked nicely I will tell you my stance on SS.

I see SS as a good thing turned bad. On the surface it was a great idea. It in sured the elderly a way to afford to live in their latter years. However, the money ended up being used for things it was never intended to be used for. To many politicians saw it as a quick source of funds. This in turn ruined the fund and all but backrupted it.

Yes, things could be fixed to make it solvent. Raising retirement age is just one step that can go to fixing it. There are others.

If they want to allow people to opt out that is fine. If they want to eliminate it all together, fine. I say if it is to be eliminated then those that are currently recieving benefits get to keep them. Those that have at least 20 years of paying into SS, should be given the choice to keep paying and still get their benefits or have the choice of getting back all money paid in plus interest with no penalty to set up their own retirement. Those with less than 20 years of payments should be given their money back with interest and with no penalty and allowed to set up their own retirement. I also feel any interest money earned on a retirement plan should not be taxed at all, if not used before age 65. No, it may not reduce spending for a while, but eventually the savings would come.





Where do you get the money to let people out if they want out while allowing current welfare recipients to continue collecting their check? For SS to pay a benefit to anyone it must first confiscate that money from another citizen.

In other words, please show your math. Your plan immediately cuts revenue in a very dramatic way while doing nothing to curb current and near term spending growth. How are you going to pay for this?

Its pretty clear you just pulled something out of your butt.


Some of my points are not that far from the LP, but it is the approach of some of those here that really turned me against RP and the LP. It is a shame that those people really don't see how much they have hurt their own party. Now where I really differ from the LP is on their views of Social Issues and laws.



:rofl:You are a straight up statist who advocated on this forum to reinstate alcohol prohibition. Please elaborate as to where your views even come anywhere close to being libertarian.

I have several years of paying into SS. I now work for a state agency and pay a healthy percentage of my check into a retirement plan and do not pay into SS anymore, So yes I would like my money back.

You didn't "pay into" anything. You were taxed, just like any other tax. The state you work for will be ponying up quite a lot of money to pay out your state retirement. Dollars to donuts you're probably still coming out WAY ahead on that gig. I seriously doubt you paid in any considerable money to SS prior to going to work for the state.

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 05:46
Chronos, My intention was not to argue the validity of SS, but to point out the hypocrisy of the LP still supporting Ron Paul. How can they justify their support after all they have said about and called people on SS?

Do a little searching and you will find a lot of examples of RP supporters really slamming those on SS, but yet they still support his run for the WH. I can't help but see that as hypocritical.

:rofl:Ron is wrong on this one IMO. Period. End of story. It is hilarious that you think that one issue taken in context of the grand scheme should DQ him from folks like me.

Social Security is pure evil, front to back. It requires state-sponsored theft in order to operate. It pits generations against one another. While I certainly understand Paul's logic on this one, I disagree with him and am disappointed that he accepts a check. But I'll take the net-net on Paul all day long.

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 05:49
Heck, Certified Funds even claimed to tell his inlaws they should be ashamed to face his kids because they were stealing from them by collecting SS.


Yes. That happened in my living room. Would you like to explain how I am wrong? Please use facts.

Now explain to me why when I post bad things about RP or the LP I am trolling,

It isn't.

Doing it a few times a week to stimulate arguments is. You're the very definition of a troll.

Cavalry Doc
06-27-2012, 06:33
Yes. That happened in my living room. Would you like to explain how I am wrong? Please use facts.



It isn't.

Doing it a few times a week to stimulate arguments is. You're the very definition of a troll.

You have to admit that it's a bit inconsistent labeling posts with criticism of Paul is trolling, but posts critical of Romney with charges that people adore him and the "Romneybot" label sprinkled in for effect are not.

G-19
06-27-2012, 08:41
Where do you get the money to let people out if they want out while allowing current welfare recipients to continue collecting their check? For SS to pay a benefit to anyone it must first confiscate that money from another citizen.

In other words, please show your math. Your plan immediately cuts revenue in a very dramatic way while doing nothing to curb current and near term spending growth. How are you going to pay for this?

Its pretty clear you just pulled something out of your butt.




:rofl:You are a straight up statist who advocated on this forum to reinstate alcohol prohibition. Please elaborate as to where your views even come anywhere close to being libertarian.



You didn't "pay into" anything. You were taxed, just like any other tax. The state you work for will be ponying up quite a lot of money to pay out your state retirement. Dollars to donuts you're probably still coming out WAY ahead on that gig. I seriously doubt you paid in any considerable money to SS prior to going to work for the state.
It must be miserable living such a close minded, negative life such as yours. You feel everyone must fit in to the little box that you feel is right, that must make you a really lonely person. If someone don't fit the little mold you have put yourself in they must be wrong. It explains why you spend so much time on the net, you are lonely. You are starved for attention, and like other children it don't matter if it is good or bad attention. You rely on the shock value of your comments to get a rise out of people in hopes of getting some one to "talk" to you. I really hope that one day you can learn to be happy and maybe have a good life. You seem to think money equals happiness, but trust me most of us can see how sad and pathetic your life really is. I suddenly realize you are someone to be pitied, not argued with.

Congrats you are the first person to be placed on my ignore list. I finally found someone that is just not worth my time.

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 16:41
It must be miserable living such a close minded, negative life such as yours. You feel everyone must fit in to the little box that you feel is right, that must make you a really lonely person. If someone don't fit the little mold you have put yourself in they must be wrong. It explains why you spend so much time on the net, you are lonely. You are starved for attention, and like other children it don't matter if it is good or bad attention. You rely on the shock value of your comments to get a rise out of people in hopes of getting some one to "talk" to you. I really hope that one day you can learn to be happy and maybe have a good life. You seem to think money equals happiness, but trust me most of us can see how sad and pathetic your life really is. I suddenly realize you are someone to be pitied, not argued with.

Congrats you are the first person to be placed on my ignore list. I finally found someone that is just not worth my time.

:rofl:In other words, you don't have any facts or math to support your assertions about Social Security and just pulled it all out of your butt. :wavey:

Congratulations. You trolled up an argument you can't win.

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 16:44
You have to admit that it's a bit inconsistent labeling posts with criticism of Paul is trolling, but posts critical of Romney with charges that people adore him and the "Romneybot" label sprinkled in for effect are not.

I'm not going back to check but it sure seems every thread this guy starts is some link to a story critical of paul or libertarianism. He posts it up looking to stimulate the arguments, not discussion. No other purpose. I let the thread roll for a couple days and he's clearly baiting throughout. If that isn't the definition of trolling I don't know what is.

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 16:45
It must be miserable living such a close minded, negative life such as yours. You feel everyone must fit in to the little box that you feel is right, that must make you a really lonely person. If someone don't fit the little mold you have put yourself in they must be wrong. It explains why you spend so much time on the net, you are lonely. You are starved for attention, and like other children it don't matter if it is good or bad attention. You rely on the shock value of your comments to get a rise out of people in hopes of getting some one to "talk" to you. I really hope that one day you can learn to be happy and maybe have a good life. You seem to think money equals happiness, but trust me most of us can see how sad and pathetic your life really is. I suddenly realize you are someone to be pitied, not argued with.

Congrats you are the first person to be placed on my ignore list. I finally found someone that is just not worth my time.

By the way, did you or did you not advocate on this very subforum for the reinstating of alcohol prohibition?

chickenwing
06-27-2012, 18:55
Sorry, I stopped reading after one factual error.

He had to apply to SS benefits to receive them.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/applying8.htm


After that error, I figured the rest of what you said was useless. So, after being duly informed and edjumacated [sic], please try again.

:wavey:



Sure he had to apply for them. He also had the pay SSI taxes. Opt out as in not pay SSI taxes. To pay the tax, and then not receive benefits is stupid. If you want to do that though, no arguments from me, hell I'd vote for you.

I don't begrudge anyone that has paid into the system, receiving benefits from the system, whether they are for it or not. I will do the same if there is anything left when I'm 97. I don't like it, but it is what it is. At least Ron wants young workers to be able to opt out of SSI, can't say the same for Mitt or Barry.

He also uses FRB notes, yet wants a competing currency, guess that makes him more of a hypocrite.



Whatever then.

chickenwing
06-27-2012, 19:31
Oh I understand perfectly what he wants to do. If you had bothered to read some of the posts in this thread, you would see that I said I felt he deserved to collect SS because he paid in to it. My posts were more directed to the hypocrisy of his supporters.

So let me try to explain this again. I will use small words for you. A lot of LP supporters have called people getting SS some really bad things in GTPI. Many of them even say that collecting SS is the same as stealing from their neighbors. Some even relate it to being robbed at gun point. Heck, Certified Funds even claimed to tell his inlaws they should be ashamed to face his kids because they were stealing from them by collecting SS. My question was how can they still support RP now that he admits to being one of those people stealing their money. To still support a person they would call a thief is hypocritical, is it not?

Now explain to me why when I post bad things about RP or the LP I am trolling, but when one of the LP crowd post numerous bad posts about Romney or Republicans it isn't trolling?

Is it because you are the one that really is butt hurt? First your guy loses, he only came in second because everyone else dropped out, most websites still show Santorum with more delegates. Then your so called secret delegate takeover strategy failed. Then Ron' own son did not even support him, because saving his political career was more important than standing on his principles. Then to find out Ol' Ronny is a thief using a gun to steal your money. I guess I can see why you are the one that is butt hurt.

After all the crap you LP (Losing Party) people have said to people over the last few months, you now want to play the victim. GROW UP!

So we agree on RP getting his benefits. Or anyone else for that matter, unless it's fraudulent. I'm down with that, the math is clear though, it's all going to crash and burn. It's not going to be fun.

You are responding to me, not a bunch of RP supporters or CF. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt over the internet.

No, I'm not. You seem to be though.

Vote for Santo then, you come across as one of his voters, not surprise.

My secret delegate strategy? :rofl:

Rand never said he didn't support his father, I posted a video on it, look it up.

So are you then, you are a thief? You aren't using that gun? What gives you the high ground?



You are trolling because you post bad things about RP to get a reaction. You've said in previous posts you like pushing the buttons of RP supporters because of certain posters. So why should I think this OP of yours any different?

You are playing the victim after being challenged. You are a hypocrite.

certifiedfunds
06-28-2012, 20:02
It must be miserable living such a close minded, negative life such as yours. You feel everyone must fit in to the little box that you feel is right, that must make you a really lonely person. If someone don't fit the little mold you have put yourself in they must be wrong. It explains why you spend so much time on the net, you are lonely. You are starved for attention, and like other children it don't matter if it is good or bad attention. You rely on the shock value of your comments to get a rise out of people in hopes of getting some one to "talk" to you. I really hope that one day you can learn to be happy and maybe have a good life. You seem to think money equals happiness, but trust me most of us can see how sad and pathetic your life really is. I suddenly realize you are someone to be pitied, not argued with.

Congrats you are the first person to be placed on my ignore list. I finally found someone that is just not worth my time.

You got a case of the internet butthurt?