**** Elections thread *****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

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:

---

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 OngBonga

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

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

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"

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/news...ban/index.html

Pot, meet kettle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/news...ban/index.html

Pot, meet kettle

---

Me and Ong being british citizens were clearly influential in this. Idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Me and Ong being british citizens were clearly influential in this. Idiot.

---

I blame you entirely. Douchebag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

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 Poopadoop

It seems you've been misinformed.

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

---

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

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.

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 OngBonga

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.

What post are you reading?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Where did I say all this other shit you're talking about?

---

Pay attention ignoramus

Quote:

---

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

"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.

banana just go play in the sandbox with your little fantasy troll kit. I don't need to suffer a fool like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Now now children, behave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What details are these though?

---

The fact that the Justice Department has been investigating Trump/Russia collusion since July.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

<insults and more rage>

---

At least I assume that's what it was; didn't actually read it.

Amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

There's lots of ways it could be a legit investigation

---

Categorically false

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

...

---

Wow that's a lot of words I'm never going to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

...

---

I'm not listening but he keeps talking.

You wanna know how I know Ryancare is total garbage? You guys aren't flipping your shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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!

That's literally worse than if they could get it without working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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.

Quote:

---

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 OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

...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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 OngBonga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

LOL at how it's Ryancare not Trumpcare

---

Not yet. The Brander in chief has not attached his name to it for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

How can there still be terrorism in the UK, we voted out. I don't understand.

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?

Quote:

---

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 Savy

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:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

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 OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Trump surveillance confirmed. Now let's get back to talking about how Obamacare 2.0 sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

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.

Quote:

---

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".

I feel like I just broke the first law of thermodynamics. Hi five to that.

First there was capitalism. Then there was socialism. Now there's Ongbongalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This is not correct.

---

(Pretty sure he knows that).

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?