Favorite team:LSU 
Location:Make Orwell Fiction Again
Biography:Warmest climes but nurse the cruellest fangs: the tiger of Bengal crouches in spiced groves of ceaseless verdure.
Interests:Cornucopian ends attained.
Occupation:Physician
Number of Posts:131771
Registered on:9/28/2003
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

We have seen absolutely 0 evidence that Iran was anywhere close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.
How would we know?
quote:

We haven't even seen any evidence that they were trying to obtain a nuclear weapon.
That's false.

quote:

But making up things about them being on the brink of having nuclear weapons is just a false justification for regime change.
Unfortunately we cannot know definitively whether "being on the brink of having nuclear weapons" is "a false justification" or not
quote:

Evangelical has a much more specific definition/concept
So does psychopathic.
quote:

HE WAS APPOINTED TO A POLITICAL BOARD POSITION BY WALZ
The above quoted language is what I said. You claim that FACT is unsupported, subjective belief, misrepresented as some sort of fact or evidence.

Yours is a silly, unnecessary contention.
quote:

If it's a bipartisan board, him being appointed to the board by someone doesn't paint a clear picture of his political leanings

It does if the person responsible for the appointment (Walz) is a partisan hack.
quote:

Your unsupported, subjective beliefs
Sorry. Once again, was he appointed to his board position by Walz?

Allow me to help .... HE WAS APPOINTED TO A POLITICAL BOARD POSITION BY WALZ

That fact is neither unsupported nor subjective belief.
quote:

And you're smart enough (I hope) to know that this is not an important detail
That's shifting the posts isn't it?
Frankly, none of us know how important a detail it is.

But what is undeniable is it is evidence of some sort.
quote:

What does that have to do with my point?
Walz would never, ever, ever remotely consider appointing someone to that, or any position, if he had the slightest inkling they were something right of borderline Communist. That is evidence. FULL STOP. DONE.

Now there may be conflicting evidence. But the contention that an appointment by one of the biggest partisan hacks in US politics is not evidence of political posture is just dumb.
quote:

He was appointed to a bipartisan workforce commission (originally by Walz's predecessor).
Walz is a rabid political partisan. Did he or did he not reappoint Vance Boelter to the WDB in 2019?
quote:

But the governor did not know Boelter, a source in his office said
A "source" said? :rotflmao:

The "source" won't even allow his/her name to be associated with the claim?
quote:

Because that narrative has literally no evidence
The fact the pschopath and his wife worked for Dems is literally evidence.
quote:

I thought the explanation posted earlier saying that he was a narcissist who couldn't stand being ordinary was as good a theory as any other.
Indeed.

We're going to find out the dude's affiliation is neither conservative nor liberal. It is .... psychopathic.
quote:

the average person recoups their own contributions within roughly 3–5 years after they start collecting benefits


So basically if you are older than 69 yrs old you are now collecting welfare.
OMG! You poor poor patsy fool! :dope:

You really are neck-deep invested in the "Social Security is a retirement benefit" trope, aren't you though?

Let's take a look at your claim ... shall we?

---

The average worker pays ~$190K (today's dollars) into SS over a working lifetime. That $190K is matched by the employer. But make no mistake, both essentially come from the worker's paycheck. So an individual's overall contribution into SS is ~$380K

The average retiree receives ~$1900/m in SS paybacks. Meaning, the individual must live 200 months past full retirement eligibility age just to recoup the cost of contributions he/she put in. In other words, after retiring at full eligibility (age 66.5), one would have to collect SS until age 83 to simply recoup contributions, WITHOUT ANY ADDED INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENT!

To that, add in the fact that as of 2023, the life expectancy at birth for men in the United States was 75.8 years, while for women it was 81.1 years.

Now then, what was it you were saying?

---

ETA: There is but one beneficiary of Social Security. It is Uncle Sam.
quote:

Why weren’t liberals worried about kings

When Biden was forcing vaccines, censoring free speech, and arresting political opponents?
They were.
Their Emperor had no clothes.

They tried to convince everyone watching, that the Emperor's clothes were not only there, but that they were beautiful.
quote:

lol seriously such ignorance
Excellent suggestion. Thanks.

quote:

Senile boomers that have taken 10X more from SSA than they put in and need money on the side

quote:

How do I know this? Because I do. Believe me or don't
India even has them :lol:
quote:

This is just the kind of nonsense we need to stop
Wait! You are saying that calling for the death of SCOTUS judges, lamenting the poor shot of a would-be assassin, comparing trump to Hitler, claiming the GOP is trying to kill grandma with Medicare cuts, comparing ICE to the gestapo, etc. warrants no consideration of culpability here?

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

re: Is someone gone ask Tim?

Posted by NC_Tigah on 6/15/25 at 6:59 am
quote:

What would be the point?
:confused:
You wonder what would be the point of asking the guy who's been comparing ICE to psychopathic Nazi murderers, and who hired this psychopath to work for him, whether he, his vitriol, and his associations hold any culpability here?

Sorry Tim, culpability is a thing.


quote:

We've been hearing that the debt is going to destroy us for 40 years...
Not from me, you haven't. I know that may sound arrogant. But THINK for yourself!

It really is not that complicated.
How does the Fed control inflation if the cost of control exceeds the cost of inflation?

Now then, calculate the cost of control of financed debt in a 137% Debt:GDP equation
quote:

Incomplete sample
No.
quote:

within the range of Hauser's Law
Hauser's "law" is an incorrect presumption in the pretext of 19.5%.