Thank you, Arnii

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Your response to my troll thread was everything I hoped for.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 4:01*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:19*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Your response to my troll thread was everything I hoped for.
>
> Don't cut yourself short George. It was everything you live for.
>
> So when Jenn accused me of trolling her I was, according to her
> Trolling a troll's troll's troll. * LoL. *And I still got a bite.

Lucky you. Now pay her to have the stain you left on her leg
cleaned. ;-)

> So...with the dems election pending...are you moving your 401K
> to the Caymans?

Based on what, 2pid?

> http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/24/nationalizing...

Gee, 2pid, the only place this "idea" seems to be floating around is
in the right-wing blogosphere.

Can you provide *one* reference that's legitimate? Or are you
admitting that you're so stupid you'll believe anything you read? LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/24/nationalizing...
>
> Gee, 2pid, the only place this "idea" seems to be floating around is
> in the right-wing blogosphere.

You followed a Scottie link. Scottie "wins" again.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Oct 24, 1:19*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
> > Your response to my troll thread was everything I hoped for.
>
> Don't cut yourself short George. It was everything you live for.
>
> So when Jenn accused me of trolling her I was, according to her
> Trolling a troll's troll's troll. LoL. And I still got a bite.

If you're including my post about Arny in your troll hierarchy above,
you need to recalculate, as it clearly wasn't a troll.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > So when Jenn accused me of trolling her I was, according to her
> > Trolling a troll's troll's troll. LoL. And I still got a bite.
>
> If you're including my post about Arny in your troll hierarchy above,
> you need to recalculate, as it clearly wasn't a troll.

Scottie doesn't want you to "cut yourself short" (translation to human
language pending). However, he does want you to punish him. Did you ask him
for another credit card? Scottie needs your ministrations, Mistress.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 4:41*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > >http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/24/nationalizing....
>
> > Gee, 2pid, the only place this "idea" seems to be floating around is
> > in the right-wing blogosphere.
>
> You followed a Scottie link. Scottie "wins" again.

Actually, I saw "blogs" in the address. i didn't bother following his
(typically) brainless link. I searched Google for any non-blog-related
link for a plan to federalize 401(k) plans. There were none.

Of course, given the source (2pid), that isn't surprising. I suppose
since 2pid 'forced' me to waste 10 seconds looking it up he still
'won' though.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.

Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
sympathizers.

Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
>
> Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> sympathizers.

Supposing he (Lenin) meant it as somebody who acts against his own best
interest, the term can now be applied to anybody who votes Republican.

> Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.

Scottie places a higher priority on government-organized flea control, note.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >
> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> > sympathizers.
>
> Supposing he (Lenin) meant it as somebody who acts against his own best
> interest, the term can now be applied to anybody who votes Republican.

Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?

Stephen

> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
>
> Scottie places a higher priority on government-organized flea control, note.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >
> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> > sympathizers.
>
> Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> work with.

How is that? Die-hard communists are few and far between these days.

> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
>
> As guaranteed as the current SS trust fund.
> Guaranteed by future generations tax dollars.

Yes, that's the best way to do it. So long as future governments don't
muck it up it's safe for infinity.

> Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> SS eligibility means test?

What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
be so out in left field.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> > SS eligibility means test?
>
> What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
> be so out in left field.


No need for idle speculation on the state of Witless's nest egg. God is
already calling Scottie, and he knows it. He's probably mixing up a batch of
Kool-Aid right this minute.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> > > SS eligibility means test?
> >
> > What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
> > be so out in left field.
>
>
> No need for idle speculation on the state of Witless's nest egg. God is
> already calling Scottie, and he knows it. He's probably mixing up a batch of
> Kool-Aid right this minute.

First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
pseudo-Randian to do?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > No need for idle speculation on the state of Witless's nest egg. God is
> > already calling Scottie, and he knows it. He's probably mixing up a batch of
> > Kool-Aid right this minute.
>
> First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
> pseudo-Randian to do?

I assume that question is a troll for the absent Mickey McMoron. Seriously,
though, the answer is the same as always: Eat a plate of bugs.

BTW, did you mean infallibility or fallibility in re Greenspan? "Gee, greed
is real. Who'd have expected that?"

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > No need for idle speculation on the state of Witless's nest egg. God is
> > > already calling Scottie, and he knows it. He's probably mixing up a batch
> > > of
> > > Kool-Aid right this minute.
> >
> > First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
> > pseudo-Randian to do?
>
> I assume that question is a troll for the absent Mickey McMoron. Seriously,
> though, the answer is the same as always: Eat a plate of bugs.

He's a real Randian. I was allowing Scott the fig-leaf of not assuming
something he hasn't tattooed backwards on his forehead or otherwise
published.

> BTW, did you mean infallibility or fallibility in re Greenspan? "Gee, greed
> is real. Who'd have expected that?"

That last thing. His mistake was "greed is moral."

Maybe infallibility is shared by Greenspan, the Pope and Rush Limbaugh
the way hags in Clash of the Titans shared an eyeball.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
> > > pseudo-Randian to do?
> >
> > I assume that question is a troll for the absent Mickey McMoron. Seriously,
> > though, the answer is the same as always: Eat a plate of bugs.
>
> He's a real Randian.

Yes, I supposed he's farther gone than Witless is.

> I was allowing Scott the fig-leaf of not assuming something he hasn't tattooed
> backwards on his forehead or otherwise published.

Scottie would never go for a fig leaf. First off, it's a metaphor. Second,
it represents false modesty, and Scottie is NOT a hypocrite.

> > BTW, did you mean infallibility or fallibility in re Greenspan? "Gee, greed
> > is real. Who'd have expected that?"
>
> That last thing. His mistake was "greed is moral."

Are you sure that wasn't Gordon Gecko?

> Maybe infallibility is shared by Greenspan, the Pope and Rush Limbaugh
> the way hags in Clash of the Titans shared an eyeball.

Sorry, no image comes to my mind. You might consider updating your cultural
touchstones at least to the 1990s.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
> > > > pseudo-Randian to do?
> > >
> > > I assume that question is a troll for the absent Mickey McMoron.
> > > Seriously,
> > > though, the answer is the same as always: Eat a plate of bugs.
> >
> > He's a real Randian.
>
> Yes, I supposed he's farther gone than Witless is.
>
> > I was allowing Scott the fig-leaf of not assuming something he hasn't
> > tattooed
> > backwards on his forehead or otherwise published.
>
> Scottie would never go for a fig leaf. First off, it's a metaphor.

Generally, yes.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Falk,_Benjamin_J._(1853-1925)_-_Eugen
_Sandow_(1867-1925)-_1894_.jpg>

> Second,it represents false modesty, and Scottie is NOT a hypocrite.

That's quite the horns of a dilemma: if I allow him his modesty, I must
be reading his mind, but if I take him at his word, I'm stereotyping him.

> > > BTW, did you mean infallibility or fallibility in re Greenspan? "Gee,
> > > greed
> > > is real. Who'd have expected that?"
> >
> > That last thing. His mistake was "greed is moral."
>
> Are you sure that wasn't Gordon Gecko?

The insurance guy? No, he thought greed was good.

I imagine he went to Club Fed after the S&L bailout.

> > Maybe infallibility is shared by Greenspan, the Pope and Rush Limbaugh
> > the way hags in Clash of the Titans shared an eyeball.
>
> Sorry, no image comes to my mind. You might consider updating your cultural
> touchstones at least to the 1990s.

imdb doesn't have a more current listing for Stygian witches, so you may
be right.

An image does come from google:

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsM/37764-3513.gif

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> >> > sympathizers.
> >>
> >> Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> >> work with.
> >
> > How is that? Die-hard communists are few and far between these days.
> >
> >> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
> >>
> >> As guaranteed as the current SS trust fund.
> >> Guaranteed by future generations tax dollars.
> >
> > Yes, that's the best way to do it. So long as future governments don't
> > muck it up it's safe for infinity.
>
> So...which past government has actually not mucked it up?
> Even douche bag Clinton spent the trust fund.

Until the principal is tapped, there's room for relatively easy
adjustment.

> >> Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> >> SS eligibility means test?
> >
> > What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
> > be so out in left field.
>
> What an odd statement. What would my 401K have to do with
> your SS.....oops,

Why, you did a turn-around on my turn-around! Note: my gambits are dull
and obvious, so emulating them isn't going to score you many points
among the lurkers.

> you read the blog on senate testimony.
> Lucky for you I suppose, I got out of the stock market over
> 6 months ago. Anybody who though our economy was gonna motor
> on with gas well over $4 was smoking something.

That's why I was against privatizing SS.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> >> >> > sympathizers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> >> >> work with.
> >> >
> >> > How is that? Die-hard communists are few and far between these days.
> >> >
> >> >> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
> >> >>
> >> >> As guaranteed as the current SS trust fund.
> >> >> Guaranteed by future generations tax dollars.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that's the best way to do it. So long as future governments don't
> >> > muck it up it's safe for infinity.
> >>
> >> So...which past government has actually not mucked it up?
> >> Even douche bag Clinton spent the trust fund.
> >
> > Until the principal is tapped, there's room for relatively easy
> > adjustment.
>
> LoL. The principle is all spent on benefits.
> The extra which should be in savings is spent in the
> general fund. All that remains are worthless IOUs.
> Who's gonna pay them? You?

LoL. You don't know what you're talking about, starting with the word
for the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal

"Principal sum, the original amount of a debt or investment on which
interest is calculated"

A more substantive rebuttal:

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=928

It's true that the government borrows and uses the proceeds for other
expenses. Under the Clinton administration, the Social Security
surpluses put the government in the black and enabled it to pay down
debt. Today, with the overall budget in much worse shape, Social
Security's surplus reduces the size of the federal budget deficit, which
in turn helps to keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be.
Even after 2018, when Social Security's trustees forecast that payroll
taxes will no longer exceed payments owed to beneficiaries, the trust
fund's interest will be more than enough to cover the gap. Under the
trustees' conservative projections, the trust fund will continue growing
for another 10 years, from $5.3 trillion in 2018 to $6.6 trillion by
2028.

--

The article is titled "Misunderstanding Social Security's Trust Fund".

> >> >> Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> >> >> SS eligibility means test?
> >> >
> >> > What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
> >> > be so out in left field.
> >>
> >> What an odd statement. What would my 401K have to do with
> >> your SS.....oops,
> >
> > Why, you did a turn-around on my turn-around!
>
> Turn-around is fair play.

Yes, you do love your IKYABWAIs.

> > Note: my gambits are dull
> > and obvious, so emulating them isn't going to score you many points
> > among the lurkers.
>
> Lurkers...come out come out wherever you are.
> Save this dreg from dull gambits.

Then they wouldn't be lurkers, would they?

> >> you read the blog on senate testimony.
> >> Lucky for you I suppose, I got out of the stock market over
> >> 6 months ago. Anybody who though our economy was gonna motor
> >> on with gas well over $4 was smoking something.
> >
> > That's why I was against privatizing SS.
>
> Over a 30 year period any idiot can beat 3% in the market.
> You're being short sighted.

Unless those thirty years include the last ten. Didn't you just say
you're out of the market yourself? How does make you savvy but me
short-sighted? How much of that 3% gets eaten up by fees? How much is
offset by higher taxes supporting bank bailouts?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western
> >> >> >> > communist
> >> >> >> > sympathizers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> >> >> >> work with.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How is that? Die-hard communists are few and far between these days.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As guaranteed as the current SS trust fund.
> >> >> >> Guaranteed by future generations tax dollars.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, that's the best way to do it. So long as future governments
> >> >> > don't
> >> >> > muck it up it's safe for infinity.
> >> >>
> >> >> So...which past government has actually not mucked it up?
> >> >> Even douche bag Clinton spent the trust fund.
> >> >
> >> > Until the principal is tapped, there's room for relatively easy
> >> > adjustment.
> >>
> >> LoL. The principle is all spent on benefits.
> >> The extra which should be in savings is spent in the
> >> general fund. All that remains are worthless IOUs.
> >> Who's gonna pay them? You?
> >
> > LoL. You don't know what you're talking about, starting with the word
> > for the subject.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal
>
> But that couldn't work..I assumed you had to mean the extra
> SS taxes collected since the principal invested every year
> is immediately stolen and replaced by worthless special
> issue T-Bills. Any way you cut it..there is no principal.

Still clinging to your "T-bills are worthless" fantasy, I see.

Bad news, dude: on payday your salary is immediately stolen and replaced
by a worthless "bank account."

> > "Principal sum, the original amount of a debt or investment on which
> > interest is calculated"
> >
> > A more substantive rebuttal:
> >
> > http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=928
> >
> > It's true that the government borrows and uses the proceeds for other
> > expenses.
>
> Borrows? Tell me...when the government borrows something
> who exactly provides the payback?

Accounting is abstract, but it's not a complete fantasy.

> > Under the Clinton administration, the Social Security
> > surpluses put the government in the black and enabled it to pay down
> > debt.
>
> How does one pay down debt by creating other debt unless
> they exchanged debt that must be paid for debt that must not?

Accounting, but you're dangerously close to figuring out how it works:
don't spend the principal.

> > Today, with the overall budget in much worse shape, Social
> > Security's surplus reduces the size of the federal budget deficit, which
> > in turn helps to keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be.
>
> With the stock market in decline what were T-Bills auctioning off
> for?
> Now we're going to use debt that we commit to pay 3% for so
> we don't incurr cheaper debt.

So now the problem is the SS fund yields too much interest.

> > Even after 2018, when Social Security's trustees forecast that payroll
> > taxes will no longer exceed payments owed to beneficiaries, the trust
> > fund's interest will be more than enough to cover the gap.
>
> Where is that interest accumulating? What bank?
> What's that? They spent the interest too?
> Who's going to pay the interest in 2018?

The 'T' in 'T-bill' means something.

Did you know governments can just print up money?

> > Under the
> > trustees' conservative projections, the trust fund will continue growing
> > for another 10 years, from $5.3 trillion in 2018 to $6.6 trillion by
> > 2028.
>
> LoL. You just said they spent the trust. Now it's growing.

You really didn't understand the paragraph.

> > The article is titled "Misunderstanding Social Security's Trust Fund".

Sigh.

> >> >> >> Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> >> >> >> SS eligibility means test?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > be so out in left field.
> >> >>
> >> >> What an odd statement. What would my 401K have to do with
> >> >> your SS.....oops,
> >> >
> >> > Why, you did a turn-around on my turn-around!
> >>
> >> Turn-around is fair play.
> >
> > Yes, you do love your IKYABWAIs.
> >
> >> > Note: my gambits are dull
> >> > and obvious, so emulating them isn't going to score you many points
> >> > among the lurkers.
> >>
> >> Lurkers...come out come out wherever you are.
> >> Save this dreg from dull gambits.
> >
> > Then they wouldn't be lurkers, would they?
> >
> >> >> you read the blog on senate testimony.
> >> >> Lucky for you I suppose, I got out of the stock market over
> >> >> 6 months ago. Anybody who though our economy was gonna motor
> >> >> on with gas well over $4 was smoking something.
> >> >
> >> > That's why I was against privatizing SS.
> >>
> >> Over a 30 year period any idiot can beat 3% in the market.
> >> You're being short sighted.
> >
> > Unless those thirty years include the last ten.
>
> LoL. Do you just say **** to look stupid?
>
> S&P500 in 1980 was ~100. Today, 25 years later its 876.
> If you appreciated only 3%/year it would be ~231
> It actually has done ~7.75%
> That doesn't include dividends.

The current situation has erased the last decade's gains.

> > Didn't you just say
> > you're out of the market yourself?
>
> For now. Markets take dumps. You don't actuall
> expect to buy and hold right up to retirement?

Because that would be crazy.

> > How does make you savvy but me
> > short-sighted? How much of that 3% gets eaten up by fees? How much is
> > offset by higher taxes supporting bank bailouts?
>
> LoL. Go ahead, be poor and dependent. I don't care.

Oddly, my profession fits your financial ideals (stratified income
levels between very rich and poor) than does your middle-income
dependency on corporations and government tax policy.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 5:23*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:51*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 4:41*pm, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > >http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/24/nationalizing...
>
> > > > Gee, 2pid, the only place this "idea" seems to be floating around is
> > > > in the right-wing blogosphere.
>
> > > You followed a Scottie link. Scottie "wins" again.
>
> > Actually, I saw "blogs" in the address. i didn't bother following his
> > (typically) brainless link. I searched Google for any non-blog-related
> > link for a plan to federalize 401(k) plans. There were none.
>
> > Of course, given the source (2pid), that isn't surprising. I suppose
> > since 2pid 'forced' me to waste 10 seconds looking it up he still
> > 'won' though.
>
> LoL. *Apparently testimony before a house subcommittee didn't happen
> if you
> can't find it covered by MSM.
>
> "Members of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on
> Income Security and Family Support are considering the pros and cons
> of redirecting the tax breaks of the voluntary 401(k) to a new
> mandatory system of guaranteed retirement accounts, which would
> constitute a sea change in employee benefit programs. "
>
> Ooops, you shouldn't have read that. *It came from a blog.

Memebers of subcommittees consider all sorts of things, 2pid. Then, if
the subcomittee thinks it's a good idea, they forward it to the full
committee for a vote. Then it has to get on the agenda of the Senate
and the House. Then it has top pass both of those, and then not get
vetoed.

But you gahead, girl. Better move your 401(k) now!

LOL!

> http://businessfinancemag.com/blogpost/retirement-planning-center-sta...
>
> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.

I think the term for you is "frightened old lady".

If I were you, 2pid, I wouldn't read any more news on subcommittees. I
would have loved to see you at a staff planning session in the
military. You would have peed in your pants at some of the things that
were discussed!

What an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 5:23*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.

BTW, 2pid, how's your 401(k) looking these days? Are you up? LOL!

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Oct 25, 5:23*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
>
> BTW, 2pid, how's your 401(k) looking these days? Are you up? LOL!

He's out of the market, switching to imaginary T-bills.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Oct, 11:55, "ScottW" > wrote:


>
> *Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> work with.
>

More useful
and more idiotic.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 22:08, MiNe 109 > wrote:

>
> Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?
>


I know, they just dropped out of the top 25.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?

> I know, they just dropped out of the top 25.

Are you talking in code? Did you bail out the Krooborg?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?
>
> > I know, they just dropped out of the top 25.
>
> Are you talking in code? Did you bail out the Krooborg?

Longhorns number 1!

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?
> >
> > > I know, they just dropped out of the top 25.
> >
> > Are you talking in code? Did you bail out the Krooborg?
>
> Longhorns number 1!
>
> Stephen

Hook 'em!

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Oct, 16:08, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,


>
> First Greenspan admits infallibility, now God is calling. What's a
> pseudo-Randian to do?
>


Shrug.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 5:23*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> >> A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
>
> >> > Actually, no. It was attributed to Lenin describing Western communist
> >> > sympathizers.
>
> >> *Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> >> work with.
>
> > How is that? Die-hard communists are few and far between these days.
>
> >> > Guaranteed retirement accounts? Sounds dangerous.
>
> >> *As guaranteed as the current SS trust fund.
> >> Guaranteed by future generations tax dollars.
>
> > Yes, that's the best way to do it. So long as future governments don't
> > muck it up it's safe for infinity.
>
> *So...which past government has actually not mucked it up?
> Even douche bag Clinton spent the trust fund.

Study civics, 2pid. Clinton (or any other President) has direct
control over only a small budget.

I'm sure you meant to say the republican majority in Congress.

> >> Is your goal in life to not be impacted by the inevitable
> >> SS eligibility means test?
>
> > What an odd question. Your 401k must have taken quite a hit for you to
> > be so out in left field.
>
> * What an odd statement. What would my 401K have to do with
> your SS.....oops, you read the blog on senate testimony.

I'm still shaking that there is testimony, questions and answers, and
other fact-finding going on.

I'm so frightened for you that it appears your leaving the US is the
only solution.

> Lucky for you I suppose, I got out of the stock market over
> 6 months ago. Anybody who though our economy was gonna motor
> on with gas well over $4 was smoking something.

Is that what made the market crash? I hadn't heard that one before.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 7:37*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > That's why I was against privatizing SS.
>
> Over a 30 year period any idiot can beat 3% in the market.
> You're being short sighted.

You're being an...

Never mind. You're too stupid to get it. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 11:42*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> I don't care.

At last 2pid admits his greatest fault as a human being.

Is this genetic, or is it due to environment?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 11:42*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> LoL. *Do you just say **** to look stupid?

LoL. Did you really mean to leave yourself this wide open?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > LoL. *Do you just say **** to look stupid?
>
> LoL. Did you really mean to leave yourself this wide open?

I believe Scottie does not understand why people say he's stupid. He's
always demanding explanations, but he never understands when he gets them.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Oct 26, 11:42*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > LoL. *Do you just say **** to look stupid?
>
> LoL. Did you really mean to leave yourself this wide open?

He's counting on the general disdain towards IKYABWAIs to protect him.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 7:38*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 5:23*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
>
> > BTW, 2pid, how's your 401(k) looking these days? Are you up? LOL!
>
> He's out of the market, switching to imaginary T-bills.

It seemed to me in the SS privatization plans I saw that wasn't an
option. I may have misunderstood though.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Oct 27, 7:38*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 25, 5:23*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > A useful idiot was the term coined for people like you.
> >
> > > BTW, 2pid, how's your 401(k) looking these days? Are you up? LOL!
> >
> > He's out of the market, switching to imaginary T-bills.
>
> It seemed to me in the SS privatization plans I saw that wasn't an
> option. I may have misunderstood though.

That's okay; I meant the stock market in general. There's such a thing
as too much choice.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 21:46, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Today Lenin would ask, what's the matter with Kansas?
> > I know, they just dropped out of the top 25.
>
> Are you talking in code? Did you bail out the Krooborg?

here is the decoder, I saved you the cost of buying the ring

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Are you talking in code? Did you bail out the Krooborg?
>
> here is the decoder, I saved you the cost of buying the ring
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

Do you have that site bookmarked? Scottie the Christian with Integrity 'n'
Stuff disapproves of gambling, you know. Here's a picture of Scottie
attending preacher school:

http://tinyurl.com/5wk37q

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 8:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 11:55, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > *Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> > work with.
>
> More useful
> and more idiotic.

Speaking of voting against one's self-interests, did you notice the
graph I posted showing that the states that vote republican are the
primary recipients of government "welfare"?

Who'd of thunk that the biggest problem regarding welfare was the
republicans.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 7:02*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Oct 27, 8:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 26 Oct, 11:55, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > Lenin is crying in his grave. If only he had this generation to
> > > work with.
>
> > More useful
> > and more idiotic.
>
> Speaking of voting against one's self-interests, did you notice the
> graph I posted showing that the states that vote republican are the
> primary recipients of government "welfare"?
>
> Who'd of thunk that the biggest problem regarding welfare was the
> republicans.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Perhaps they've figured out first hand how damaging it
> is to their families and communities.

I have a different theory. The states that tend to vote for Dems have
higher incomes. There also seems to be a correlation between
educational system quality for those states.

So the correlation seems to be that the broke-assed, uneducated states
tend to vote republican. Looking at you as a representative of the
average republican, I'd say the correlation generally holds true. ;-)