Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 83 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 6,151 to 6,225 of 8309
  1. #6151
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    has anyone said since that we have to take our shoes off when going onto flights? No.
    Ummmm.......when was the last time you flew?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Because smartphones are good. If you think smartphones can't bring down an aircraft, but shoes can, well you're right where they fucking want you.
    I didn't say that smart phones couldn't be used as a weapon. But people who's job it is to figure this stuff out have decided that they can determine a smart-phone's threat level by using the existing screening procedures for carry on items.

    For larger electronics, I'm guessing that assessment can take more time, especially when you are aware of a "evaluated intelligence" that suggests one of these devices might be a threat.
  2. #6152
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ummmm.......when was the last time you flew?
    8 years ago, but a google search for "do you have to take your shoes off to fly" yields nothing that tells me things have changed since then.


    I didn't say that smart phones couldn't be used as a weapon. But people who's job it is to figure this stuff out have decided that they can determine a smart-phone's threat level by using the existing screening procedures for carry on items.

    For larger electronics, I'm guessing that assessment can take more time, especially when you are aware of a "evaluated intelligence" that suggests one of these devices might be a threat.
    I'm the one saying smartphones can be used as a weapon. If they think they already have the necessary tools to quickly anaylse the threat level of a phone, but not a tablet, then fair enough. But I find this really hard to believe. Like, really hard. A tablet is just a bigger phone. It's still works the same, so why can't the methods applied to phones be applied to tablets? Why take the tablet elsewhere and conduct it to different tests when the test the phone underwent would have sufficed?

    It doesn't make sense to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #6153
    I didn't say that smart phones couldn't be used as a weapon.
    I misread this at first as "could", rather than "couldn't", so ignore the comment "I'm the one saying smartphones can be used as a weapon" in my post above, it's irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #6154
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    8 years ago, but a google search for "do you have to take your shoes off to fly" yields nothing that tells me things have changed since then.
    Not sure how it works at Heathrow, but in America, you have to put your shoes through the xray machine before you can fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If they think they already have the necessary tools to quickly anaylse the threat level of a phone, but not a tablet, then fair enough.
    Ok, why not stop there? Why go looking for excuses to be cynical?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    A tablet is just a bigger phone. It's still works the same, so why can't the methods applied to phones be applied to tablets?
    Who knows. We shouldn't know. That's the kind of secret we want to keep from the bad guys.

    Speculating now, but if we're talking about explosives, then I suppose there is some correlation between size, and dangerous-ness.

    Or if weapons could be disguised as circuitry, then again, size matters.

    Maybe you're entirely correct and there isn't a good reason to ban tablets and not phones. Maybe they're really targeting laptops. But with lots of hybrid models on the market do you want the minimum wage TSA agent deciding what's a tablet and what's a laptop? Considering this regulation has to be applied to 10 different airports in 8 different countries, wouldn't you expect it's more practical to use a simpler criteria like size? In other words, maybe tablets really are ok, they just got caught in the trap we set for laptops. It's not like anyone's rights are being infringed....so what's the big deal?

    Again, this is all speculation on my part. But it all seems a ton more reasonable than "they made this up to scare people" or "they did this to pick on muslims"
  5. #6155
  6. #6156
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Me and Ong being british citizens were clearly influential in this. Idiot.
  7. #6157
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Me and Ong being british citizens were clearly influential in this. Idiot.
    I blame you entirely. Douchebag
  8. #6158
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not a security expert, but I would guess that it's easier to hide weapons, explosives, or other contraband within a larger unit.

    There are a multitude of x-ray machines at every international airport in the world, specifically in place for this purpose.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  9. #6159
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can someone tell me how Trump's claim of being wire-tapped by the Obama administration has been "debunked", "torpedoed", "discredited", "denied", "unfounded", and "false" but the claim that Trump colluded with Russia is none of those things?

    Does it matter that the amount of evidence supporting each of those claims is exactly the same?
    There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.
  10. #6160
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.
    It seems you've been misinformed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.a9ca85eddaa1

    Also, I heard the leaks on Flynn came from the fact the Russian guy was being surveiled.
  11. #6161
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    Ok, why not stop there? Why go looking for excuses to be cynical?
    I am cynical, it's not that I'm looking for excuses to be cynical.

    To me, it's pretty simple. Either there is a threat, or there is not. Where there is a threat, then don't let people take anything onto a flight in hand luggage that they do not need. You need the clothes you wear, water, perhaps medicine or an inhaler, reading glasses. There's on board entertainment, and I don't see why taking a book should be a problem. The priority should be to get people from A to B safely, not cater to people's boredom by letting them play with phones, which have potentially explosive batteries. What did people do on flights before mobile phones? What did bombers and hijackers do before laptops?

    Our policies when it comes to these matters do not make sense. The ban only applies to certain countries. All that does is tell the terrorists which airports they can operate from. Where is Libya? Nigeria? Algeria? The USA ban applies to UAE and Saudi Arabia, two allies. It does not apply to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia... it doesn't even reflect the threat, I mean the shoe bomber was a British guy who targetted a flight from Paris to Miami... so why is USA not applying this ban to France and UK? There's a threat from these places.

    This is all about maintaining a climate of fear.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #6162
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What article are you reading? The Flynn stuff came from "wiretapped" data. There's no denying that exact headline appears in the NY Times. The article you linked says that Trump is wrong to claim its a report of Obama ordering it, or that the surveillance took place specifically at Trump tower. However, wuf made neither of those assertions.

    Wuf's point, I believe, echoes mine, which is that SOMEBODY wiretapped Flynn, at the very least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Also, I heard the leaks on Flynn came from the fact the Russian guy was being surveiled.
    Cute play there, using the word "fact" to describe something that is purely speculative and not supported by a single shred of evidence.

    In a lot of ways, it's worse for America if Obama was really wiretapping a foreign ambassador rather than a domestic political opponent.

    And in either case, it's extra-bad that Flynn's name got leaked in the first place.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-21-2017 at 03:19 PM.
  13. #6163
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    In a lot of ways, it's worse for America if Obama was really wiretapping a foreign ambassador rather than a domestic political opponent.
    It's just embarrassing. All nations are spying, and all nations know they are being spied on. If you get exposed, you're doing a shit job of being "covert".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #6164
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's just embarrassing. All nations are spying, and all nations know they are being spied on. If you get exposed, you're doing a shit job of being "covert".
    Exactly. You would be 'covert' if you were spying on another nation. If it were a foreign intelligence operation, then maintaining that 'covert' status would be far more important to the intelligence agents than exposing a Trump appointee for mis-remembering a conversation he had weeks earlier.

    The fact that names were leaked suggests that the target of the surveillance was NOT a foreign power. It suggests that its purpose was to go fishing for things to leak.
  15. #6165
    What post are you reading?

    There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.
    is what Wuf said.

    The link I posted just showed that statement was false.

    Where did I say all this other shit you're talking about? Fuck, you must really have a hole in your brain if you can't read something and actually understand what the words mean and respond to that rather than turn it into something different you can attack. You fucking idiot.
  16. #6166
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The link I posted just showed that statement was false.
    No, it didn't you contemptuous retard

    The NYT reported that the Flynn leaks were the result of conversations that were wire-tapped. That's a true statement confirmed by the article that you linked.
  17. #6167
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It seems you've been misinformed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.a9ca85eddaa1

    Also, I heard the leaks on Flynn came from the fact the Russian guy was being surveiled.
    "Trump" is short for "Trump campaign." The NYT claims wiretapping was in that. How do you suppose wiretapped data of Trump aides exists if there was no wiretapping involving Trump aides? Is Schrodinger's Flynn tapped and untapped at the same time?
  18. #6168
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, it didn't you contemptuous retard
    Lol. Good argument.

    So first, you can't actually take what someone says and argue against it, so you change their meaning into something that you can yell at them for.

    Then second, when you called a fucking idiot (which you are), your response is to say 'no i'm not you are'. Fucking hilarious. It's like arguing with a six year old.
  19. #6169
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Where did I say all this other shit you're talking about?
    Pay attention ignoramus

    The article you linked says that Trump is wrong to claim its a report of Obama ordering it, or that the surveillance took place specifically at Trump tower.
    Is your name 'article you linked'?
  20. #6170
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    "Trump" is short for "Trump campaign." The NYT claims wiretapping was in that. How do you suppose wiretapped data of Trump aides exists if there was no wiretapping involving Trump aides? Is Schrodinger's Flynn tapped and untapped at the same time?
    When one person gets tapped, all the people they're talking to get tapped also, even if they're not directly under investigation. If I call up Don Corleone (or he calls me) several times and we talk, it can be recorded even though I wasn't the one being tapped.
  21. #6171
    banana just go play in the sandbox with your little fantasy troll kit. I don't need to suffer a fool like you.
  22. #6172
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    When one person gets tapped, all the people they're talking to get tapped also, even if they're not directly under investigation. If I call up Don Corleone (or he calls me) several times and we talk, it can be recorded even though I wasn't the one being tapped.
    Yeah, and your name is supposed to be 'masked' by law so that any results of the warrant against Mr. Corleone do not affect other citizens.
  23. #6173
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    banana just go play in the sandbox with your little fantasy troll kit. I don't need to suffer a fool like you.
    LOL, so you made up reasons to throw shit at me, and now that they are debunked and you're exposed as a gaping ass-hole, you don't wanna play anymore

    I hope you fall down some stairs cock-breath
  24. #6174
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    LOL, so you made up reasons to throw shit at me, and now that they are debunked and you're exposed as a gaping ass-hole, you don't wanna play anymore

    I hope you fall down some stairs cock-breath
    Bye.
  25. #6175
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Now now children, behave!
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  26. #6176
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    When one person gets tapped, all the people they're talking to get tapped also, even if they're not directly under investigation. If I call up Don Corleone (or he calls me) several times and we talk, it can be recorded even though I wasn't the one being tapped.
    We've never said Flynn was the target.

    The details of the story do point towards Trump and his camp being the political target, though.
  27. #6177
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    We've never said Flynn was the target.

    The details of the story do point towards Trump and his camp being the political target, though.
    What details are these though? And where are you getting them?
  28. #6178
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What details are these though?
    The fact that the Justice Department has been investigating Trump/Russia collusion since July.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And where are you getting them?
    From the FBI Director's mouth

    If you pulled your dick out of your ear for five god damn seconds, you might know what's going on.
  29. #6179
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The fact that the Justice Department began investigating Trump/Russia collusion since July.


    From the FBI Director's mouth

    If you pulled your dick out of your ear for five god damn seconds, you might know what's going on.
    http://www.rageaholicsanonymous.org/
  30. #6180
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What details are these though? And where are you getting them?
    Analysis of what's been happening. The Russia thing is full of lies and misdirection and would NEVER be a story targeted on Hillary even if she committed treason on video while laughing about it. If you are correct that the political target that got Flynn was the Russian and not Flynn, then the IC leak against Flynn would not have happened. The cognitive dissonance is off the charts. They admit the IC deep state is beating up Trump when it suits them then deny the IC deep state exists when it suits them.

    This sort of lying and misdirection should be expected from a media that has an annual congratulatory dinner with elected leaders where they fondle each others' balls.
  31. #6181
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If you are correct that the political target that got Flynn was the Russian and not Flynn, then the IC leak against Flynn would not have happened. .
    Well, they could have been suspecting Trump's campaign of being dodgy, made some excuse to tap the Russians and then got the info on Flynn that was leaked. I can buy that. And why wouldn't they be suspicious if Manafort was already shown to be taking payoffs?
  32. #6182
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well, they could have been suspecting Trump's campaign of being dodgy, made some excuse to tap the Russians and then got the info on Flynn that was leaked. I can buy that. And why wouldn't they be suspicious if Manafort was already shown to be taking payoffs?
    That could all happen, yet it wouldn't get leaked. It would be a part of an investigation to build a case. They would never tip off Flynn, the ambassador, Trump, the public, or anybody by leaking it. The fact that this was a leak against Flynn confirms that this is a political hunt against Flynn at the least and probably ultimately against Trump. If this was an intel investigation, the information never gets leaked.
  33. #6183
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well, they could have been suspecting Trump's campaign of being dodgy, made some excuse to tap the Russians and then got the info on Flynn that was leaked. I can buy that.
    Maybe this happens where you live on Planet Fuck-tard, and it's perfectly ok. Here in the realm of the sane, what you're saying is monumentally bad.

    It's not enough to 'suspect Trump's campaign of being dodgy'. You can't just wire-tap someone because of vague suspicion. There is an exceptionally high standard of probable cause required for a FISA warrant for thsi kind of surveillance. If the target is a presidential candidate, and your own political opponent, then the standard should be even higher.

    The standard should be higher still if you're going after a foreign ambassador. Wire-tapping him could be interpreted as an aggressive act against a foreign nation. An act of war even. That's not something you "make some excuse" to do.

    The scenario that you described, saying 'you can buy it', is super-ridiculously bad. And it's not even close to debunked by the WaPo article you linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And why wouldn't they be suspicious if Manafort was already shown to be taking payoffs?
    More baseless speculation

    Also, why would Manafort be given a payoff if the Russians are the ones performing the service? Shouldn't the money go the other way dumbass?
  34. #6184
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That could all happen, yet it wouldn't get leaked.
    There's lots of ways it could be a legit investigation and the info gets leaked. Flynn could have been tipped off to stop talking to the Russians and the IC could have decided it was better to put out what they had rather than wait till it was old news, for example.

    What's surprising is that Trump is always praisiing Putin, hires a foreign secretary who has ties to Putin, and so is clearly going to be under suspicion; and yet people on his team keep talking to Russians like no-one will notice.

    The real truth is that so much smoke is being blown up the public's ass by both sides we'll probably never really know what's going on.
  35. #6185
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    <insults and more rage>
    At least I assume that's what it was; didn't actually read it.

    Amirite?
  36. #6186
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Maybe this happens where you live on Planet Fuck-tard, and it's perfectly ok. Here in the realm of the sane, what you're saying is monumentally bad.

    It's not enough to 'suspect Trump's campaign of being dodgy'. You can't just wire-tap someone because of vague suspicion. There is an exceptionally high standard of probable cause required for a FISA warrant for thsi kind of surveillance. If the target is a presidential candidate, and your own political opponent, then the standard should be even higher.

    The standard should be higher still if you're going after a foreign ambassador. Wire-tapping him could be interpreted as an aggressive act against a foreign nation. An act of war even. That's not something you "make some excuse" to do.

    The scenario that you described, saying 'you can buy it', is super-ridiculously bad. And it's not even close to debunked by the WaPo article you linked.


    More baseless speculation

    Also, why would Manafort be given a payoff if the Russians are the ones performing the service? Shouldn't the money go the other way dumbass?
    Yeah that's another factor for how we can tell this is a political hunt against Trump. The supposed investigation requires very serious reason/evidence in the first place, none of which has been shown and any of which is suggested to not exist due to the existence of related leaks. If the Russia/Trump connection was real, we wouldn't know shit about it.
  37. #6187
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's lots of ways it could be a legit investigation
    Categorically false

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Flynn could have been tipped off to stop talking to the Russians
    Tipped off to what? I thought those of us who suspected the surveillance occurred were "misinformed"?? Isn't that what you said?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    and the IC could have decided it was better to put out what they had
    Why on earth would the IC "decide to put out" anything? That's not even close to their job. Why would they "decide" to do that, if their goal was something other than to smear Trump?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What's surprising is that Trump is always praisiing Putin,
    A handful of quotes maybe. And they are hardly 'gushing'. Besides, what would it prove if he spent all his time shitting on Putin? Trump spends alot of time shitting on 'radical islamic terrorists', and he gets called a racist for it. One major argument his detractors make is that Trump goes around pissing off foreign leaders. He talks tough on the phone with Nieto, and he gets lambasted for it. He takes the opposite approach with Putin, and gets shit for that too. Typical liberal double-standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    hires a foreign secretary who has ties to Putin,
    What "ties"? Tillerson was the leader of a humongous global corporation. He has ties to every foreign leader. That's probably a big reason why he got this job!! God you're fucking dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    and so is clearly going to be under suspicion;
    Clearly huh? Why? Cause that fits an infantile political narrative that your puny shit-coated brain can understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    and yet people on his team keep talking to Russians like no-one will notice.
    huh? It's very typical for political campaigns to have contact with foreign officials. Session's dealings with teh Russian amassador were innocuous at best. Did you see how democratic senators (McCaskill for example) claimed that they were on the same committee as Sessions and never had to meet with the Russian Ambassador.

    If you watch Fox, and not CNN, you would have seen that she tweeted "On my way to meet Russian Ambassador" like three separate times over the past couple years.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ussian-ambass/

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The real truth is that so much smoke is being blown up the public's ass by both sides we'll probably never really know what's going on.
    How can you be so colossally retarded to not see that the "real truth" is that this is all a political hitjob carefully coordinated by Democrats and the media.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-21-2017 at 05:00 PM.
  38. #6188
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ...
    Wow that's a lot of words I'm never going to read.
  39. #6189
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Wow that's a lot of words I'm never going to read.
    Don't get discouraged. never say "never".

    Anyone can learn, even an empty-skulled lib-tard who has taken one too many hockey pucks to the forehead.

    https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
  40. #6190
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ...
    I'm not listening but he keeps talking.
  41. #6191
    You wanna know how I know Ryancare is total garbage? You guys aren't flipping your shit.
  42. #6192
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You wanna know how I know Ryancare is total garbage? You guys aren't flipping your shit.
    LOL at how it's Ryancare not Trumpcare
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  43. #6193
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You wanna know how I know Ryancare is total garbage? You guys aren't flipping your shit.
    If the republicans were trying to say it was great, there'd be some shit flipping. But even they know it's garbage.
  44. #6194
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You wanna know how I know Ryancare is total garbage? You guys aren't flipping your shit.
    LOL, Jimmy was.

    Ryancare has a work requirement for medicaid now. Able bodied people who don't have a child under 6 aren't allowed to sit on their ass anymore. That really fucks up Jimmy's plan.

    He can get out of working though, if he knocks some bitch up.

    What a country!
  45. #6195
    That's literally worse than if they could get it without working.
  46. #6196
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    That's literally worse than if they could get it without working.
    Is it really?

    I think the idea of people having children solely for the gov't benefits is somewhat of a myth. I'm not saying it never happens, but you'd have to show me some really convincing data that says government entitlement programs reduce pregnancies before I start letting able-bodied people stay home on the taxpayer's money.
  47. #6197
    I think the idea of people having children solely for the gov't benefits is somewhat of a myth.
    Having children is certainly a career choice for some here. I agree with Savy, it's much worse a situation. If I had a kid, I would feel obliged to get a job and do my best to give that kid the best chance in life.

    When someone like me takes themself out of the workforce, it's not really a problem on the greater scheme of things. I mean sure, people like banana have a moral problem with lazy fucks like me, and I get that. But I cost the taxpayer very little compared with lots of others on benefits. If I had a gf on benefits, and two kids, well that changes things a lot. Suddenly, between us we're raking in a shit load. Considering the kids need educating, healthcare etc, and the cost to the taxpayer becomes significant. And since our children grew up with two lazy fucks for parents who would rather have an easy life than set an example and give their kids a healthy start in life, good chance they're not going to grow up to be good little taxpayers. So the public investment in those children would be more likely to be wasted.

    When people are told they can only have benefits if they have children, well there will be plenty of idiots who would prefer to have children than go and get a job. I'm not one of them, but they certainly exist here, and having children isn't even a requirement to access benefits. It just makes it much harder for them to take your benefits away if you support children.

    So I suspect you're being a little naive if you think that we're not talking about a significant number.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #6198
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When someone like me takes themself out of the workforce, it's not really a problem on the greater scheme of things.
    Says you. Here in the real world it really is a problem.

    But I cost the taxpayer very little compared with lots of others on benefits
    False. If you bet/fold for 200 when bet/calling has a EV of +600, you can't really say that your line lost 200. In reality, you lost the difference between the two plays, which is 800 betting units. When you talk about your cost to the economy, you're only looking at the -200. You're failing to account for the contribution you would make to the economy as a working citizen. Both in taxes paid, and by spending your money in an economy full of other taxpaying citizens.

    good chance they're not going to grow up to be good little taxpayers. So the public investment in those children would be more likely to be wasted.
    Completely not true. We covered this earlier when we talked about the difference between income inequality and income mobility. In America, almost 70% of kids born into the bottom 20% ascend out of that quintile.

    When people are told they can only have benefits if they have children, well there will be plenty of idiots who would prefer to have children than go and get a job.
    I don't think it's a finite, conscious decision like you're describing. I realize some folks are born into a welfare lifestyle, and can learn habits that cause them to live the same way. But I don't think anyone is reaching a crossroads in their life and consciously deciding "nah, I'll just get knocked up"

    Bitches do that to men that they want to support them all the time, not government though. Men are easier targets, and generally provide more money than a government benefit program.

    So I suspect you're being a little naive if you think that we're not talking about a significant number.
    Show me the number then
  49. #6199
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    Says you. Here in the real world it really is a problem.
    It's only such a problem to you because you allow yourself to be consumed by contempt for those who refuse to work.

    You're failing to account for the contribution you would make to the economy as a working citizen.
    You're making the asusmption that I have an obligation to contribute to society. I don't, no more than I am obliged to bet when I have +ev.

    ...and by spending your money in an economy full of other taxpaying citizens.
    You go further. Not only am I obliged to work to pay tax, I am also obliged to consume.

    Do you not see the problem here? In your world, a baby is a future taxpayer and consumer. That's a very bleak world, one in which I don't want to live.

    In America, almost 70% of kids born into the bottom 20% ascend out of that quintile.
    That means over 30% don't. And by what standard is this statistic measured? What does "out of that quintile" mean? Working for minimum wage?

    Bitches do that to men that they want to support them all the time, not government though. Men are easier targets, and generally provide more money than a government benefit program.
    I think this is a culture class. I am certain that in my town alone, there are lots of people who have children as a career choice.

    Show me the number then
    -74.5623

    I mean what do you really want from me? Who do you suppose is conducting polls around the streets of Britian, asking women with pushchairs if they had kids just so they could claim benefits? Watch Jeremy Kyle, that will give you an idea of the kind of people in the UK that are living on benefits.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #6200
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's only such a problem to you because you allow yourself to be consumed by contempt for those who refuse to work
    Contempt for those who take without deserving it, thus diminishing the amount of benefits payable to those who DO deserve it, is natural.

    Do you have contempt for able-bodied people who park in handicap spaces just to avoid a longer walk to the door? That's exactly what you're doing, and it's an asshole move.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're making the asusmption that I have an obligation to contribute to society. I don't, no more than I am obliged to bet when I have +ev.
    It's sad that you think that way. Really sad. But truly, how do you not feel you have an obligation? Public schools teach people to read and write. Police departments keep people from breaking into your house at night and butt-raping you. Intelligence agencies keep you from being blown up by terrorists. Armies keep you from being invaded and enslaved. Your life would be drastically different if there were no streets, power lines, or sewers.

    None of those things exist without a government for the people, of the people, and by the people. What makes you exempt from participation?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You go further. Not only am I obliged to work to pay tax, I am also obliged to consume..
    You're not obliged to do anything. I merely assumed you would consume. Do you like food? Clothing? Electricity? Internet access? By all means, if you'd rather starve naked in the dark, than spend your hard-earned paycheck, be my guest.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you not see the problem here? In your world, a baby is a future taxpayer and consumer.
    How is it that babies grow into people only in "my world". What happens to babies in 'your world'?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's a very bleak world, one in which I don't want to live.
    I don't want to live in your world where babies stay the same age forever. That place sounds seriously fucked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That means over 30% don't.
    Ever consider what's keeping them down? The three biggest predictors of poverty are 1) dropping out of high school, 2) having a baby out of wedlock, and 3) having a baby before age 21. Which begs the question....how are these people getting the idea that having a baby is a way to make money. It's most obviously a way to get poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And by what standard is this statistic measured? What does "out of that quintile" mean? Working for minimum wage?
    It means they ascend out of the bottom 20%. What's hard to understand here?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I mean what do you really want from me? Who do you suppose is conducting polls around the streets of Britian, asking women with pushchairs if they had kids just so they could claim benefits?
    If it's such a significant number, shouldn't there be data to support it? You think no one has ever conducted a survey asking "why did you have kids?".

    https://wehavekids.com/misc/Most-Com...-Want-Children

    There's ten common reasons.....none of them are "paycheck"
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-22-2017 at 12:00 PM.
  51. #6201
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Is it really?

    I think the idea of people having children solely for the gov't benefits is somewhat of a myth. I'm not saying it never happens, but you'd have to show me some really convincing data that says government entitlement programs reduce pregnancies before I start letting able-bodied people stay home on the taxpayer's money.
    The funny thing is that in the UK it's actually more of a myth than the media makes out (or used to, now they are busy hating brown people) but as a result people think that it is a viable option and do it when in fact it doesn't make all that much difference. It is still somewhat beneficial in terms of finding social housing but it's pretty minor.

    I also don't think it will make all that much difference overall but it's worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    https://wehavekids.com/misc/Most-Com...-Want-Children

    There's ten common reasons.....none of them are "paycheck"
    Can you actually think of a way of conducting this experiment to get honest answers out of people, very few people are going to say a paycheck & let's be honest even if they do it for a paycheck it's rarely the sole reason.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-22-2017 at 01:32 PM.
  52. #6202
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    LOL at how it's Ryancare not Trumpcare
    Not yet. The Brander in chief has not attached his name to it for a reason.
  53. #6203
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If the republicans were trying to say it was great, there'd be some shit flipping. But even they know it's garbage.
    Why would an Obamacare supporter flip his shit over something that so closely resembles Obamacare?
  54. #6204
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ever consider what's keeping them down? The three biggest predictors of poverty are 1) dropping out of high school, 2) having a baby out of wedlock, and 3) having a baby before age 21. Which begs the question....how are these people getting the idea that having a baby is a way to make money. It's most obviously a way to get poor.
    You're confusing things here. No one is having a baby to get rich (well bar those that trick rich people into having a kid with them) it's so they get a level of support above that which they would otherwise get in the same situation without a child. That can still very easily be below the poverty line.
  55. #6205
    How can there still be terrorism in the UK, we voted out. I don't understand.
  56. #6206
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    None of those things exist without a government for the people, of the people, and by the people. What makes you exempt from participation?
    Free will. What makes me obliged?

    You're not obliged to do anything. I merely assumed you would consume. Do you like food? Clothing? Electricity? Internet access? By all means, if you'd rather starve naked in the dark, than spend your hard-earned paycheck, be my guest.
    Well I do this anyway. I reinvest all of my benefits back into the economy. It either goes to my landlord, or on food, tobacco, or to my weed dealer, who then spends it on flash cars. So if you want to play this game, my net cost to the economy is precisely zero, because I am not collecting capital. Now let's talk again about obligation. Why should I give up my life to pay tax and consume more, when I can survive in the system for no net loss to the taxpayer?

    Check.

    Fucking.

    Mate.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #6207
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    How can there still be terrorism in the UK, we voted out. I don't understand.
    False fucking flag, same old shit. If anyone wanted to attack MPs, they wouldn't go ploughing through a crowd of people and running in shouting Allah this Allah that while stabbing up cops. They'd want the publicity that comes with actually hitting an MP. Crock of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #6208
    There's ten common reasons.....none of them are "paycheck"
    HAHAHA oh my, this is funny.

    Question, are you a benefits whore that only had kids so you could be a lazy cow?

    Surprisingly, noone said yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #6209
    I still haven't figured out the political angle Trump is likely playing on healthcare here. I think it's to defang the establishment Republicans who are pushing to keep Obamacare, like Paul Ryan. But I don't know.
  60. #6210
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    False fucking flag, same old shit. If anyone wanted to attack MPs, they wouldn't go ploughing through a crowd of people and running in shouting Allah this Allah that while stabbing up cops. They'd want the publicity that comes with actually hitting an MP. Crock of shit.
    I think people are missing the important thing here, was he carrying a laptop.
  61. #6211
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I still haven't figured out the political angle Trump is likely playing on healthcare here. I think it's to defang the establishment Republicans who are pushing to keep Obamacare, like Paul Ryan. But I don't know.
    He probably hasn't even given it a moments thought.
  62. #6212
    That's certainly not true, but it can be the case that he doesn't have an angle here other than just getting the negotiation done.
  63. #6213
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's certainly not true, but it can be the case that he doesn't have an angle here other than just getting the negotiation done.
    He hasn't figured out his angle yet. He's waiting for Fox News or Breitbart to tell him what he thinks.
  64. #6214
    If Trump signs anything remotely close to Ryancare, I'll put the likelihood of him losing reelection to >50% and all my personal enthusiasm will vanish. Ryancare keeps the key component of Obamacare that pushes costs up the most. The Phase 2 deregulation proposal will be weaker than proposed, and no Democrat will vote for Phase 3. As health insurance costs continue to rise after Trump signs Obamacare 2.0, the country will blame Republicans and embrace Democrats, coming full circle by embracing those who caused the problem in the first place.

    It's savvy politics that figures out a way to get rid of the pre-existing condition feature, or bust. A health insurance system with that stupid feature can still function with small level of robustness, but it will always be weak and harm people greatly.

    Ryancare turning into Trumpcare would signal big time stupidity on Trump's part.
  65. #6215
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I think people are missing the important thing here, was he carrying a laptop.
    Reports suggesting he was shouting "WINDOWS UPDATES" and "DEATH TO MICROSOFT" are yet to be confirmed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #6216
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Reports suggesting he was shouting "WINDOWS UPDATES" and "DEATH TO MICROSOFT" are yet to be confirmed.
    I've heard that these leaks came from the apple camp, fake news.
  67. #6217
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So if you want to play this game, my net cost to the economy is precisely zero,
    False, every dollar in benefits you consume is a dollar that could be given to someone more deserving. Just because in the vacuum of your own life, you've figured some roundabout math that ends in $0, doesn't mean that's the case for the larger economic picture.

    You're taking without giving. That's a net loss.
  68. #6218
    Trump surveillance confirmed. Now let's get back to talking about how Obamacare 2.0 sucks.
  69. #6219
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're taking without giving. That's a net loss.
    But I am giving. Everything goes back. The only thing I'm not giving is my labour, my time. So you can argue that the economy loses because it doesn't have my productivity and tax, but it doesn't lose because it has to pay me money. It would if I didn't then spend it, or sent it abroad. When I eat, I am consuming goods that I bought from a company. That company profits. Ultimately, the economy benefits from my consumption to the exact amount they give me. Because it all goes back.

    False, every dollar in benefits you consume is a dollar that could be given to someone more deserving.
    Yeah I mean this would maybe have some element of truth if currency was actually based on a resource such as gold. If someone is "more deserving" than me, then give them money too. It's not going to cost the economy anything except their lost productivity and tax. And that is not an obligation.

    Honestly banana, thanks for helping me come to realise that I'm not actually costing the economy anything. I hope after you give it some thought, you'll realise that actually it's true, that if it all goes back in, then I haven't actually been "given" anything, just "loaned".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #6220
    I feel like I just broke the first law of thermodynamics. Hi five to that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #6221
    First there was capitalism. Then there was socialism. Now there's Ongbongalism.
  72. #6222
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I feel like I just broke the first law of thermodynamics. Hi five to that.
    It would be cool if you could reject the Nobel Prize in Economics the same year as the one in Physics. Legendary.
  73. #6223
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But I am giving. Everything goes back. The only thing I'm not giving is my labour, my time. So you can argue that the economy loses because it doesn't have my productivity and tax, but it doesn't lose because it has to pay me money. It would if I didn't then spend it, or sent it abroad. When I eat, I am consuming goods that I bought from a company. That company profits. Ultimately, the economy benefits from my consumption to the exact amount they give me. Because it all goes back.



    Yeah I mean this would maybe have some element of truth if currency was actually based on a resource such as gold. If someone is "more deserving" than me, then give them money too. It's not going to cost the economy anything except their lost productivity and tax. And that is not an obligation.

    Honestly banana, thanks for helping me come to realise that I'm not actually costing the economy anything. I hope after you give it some thought, you'll realise that actually it's true, that if it all goes back in, then I haven't actually been "given" anything, just "loaned".
    Hi, Gandalf.

    This is not correct.
  74. #6224
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is not correct.
    (Pretty sure he knows that).
  75. #6225
    Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

    Why all the rage against Person B and not A?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •