124 Reasons

[leftism]

Originally posted by 1234
Please show us (and this is the third or fourth time I have asked) proof of this 85% figure in service providers within the US. Note, service providers such as welfare and health.

For the fifth time j2k4 refuses to answer a simple question about his own argument and resorts to insults. I've witnessed exactly the same thing in the thread about global warming.

I suspect j2k4 wants a soapbox for his "the left are trying to destroy civilization" conspiracy theory. He has made it quite clear that he has no interest in any kind of debate.

Unless of course you define debate as "assert your position, refuse to defend it and spit out insults at anyone who is persistent enough to ask questions more than once".

[j2k4]

Pray, lefty-

Where are these "insults"?

[alpha]

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Where are these "insults"?

Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?

Your blatant double standards beggar belief.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+14 January 2004 - 12:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 14 January 2004 - 12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Where are these "insults"?

Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?

Your blatant double standards beggar belief. [/b][/quote]
As do yours, sir.

How do you like it?


Alpha-

Thank you-I feel the same way.

[1234]

Why do your take offense at my notice of your proud claim of being "left" of any American political party?

That was not your statement. This is what you actually said -

So you are left of everyone, huh? That&#39;s too bad.&nbsp;

I am not left of everyone, however I am left of most US parties. Sorry, but the US does not qualify as "everyone".

It would seem you believe you alone enjoy the sunshine of true enlightenment

Where did I say that? I present things for debate and debate other people&#39;s posts.

I have a different opinion.

Opinion appears to be all you have, unnsupported by facts.

You, by virtue of your remarks, denigrate the U.S. and it&#39;s political system, then claim immunity from anyone who would question your motivation.

But you are the one who pointed out the Democrats took backhanders from Enron etc, not me. So you are quite happy to point the finger at US politics too.

However I am not against the US, I am against the elite in the US that harm both US citizens and the wider world. Now if you cannot distinguish between criticism of political process and racism/nationalism (which if I attacked the US as a people for no reason I would be guilty of) that is not my problem but yours. Bush is not America, neither was Clinton.

Also, what immunity? From random insults like the ones you post? Now quite sure I follow you there.

I haven&#39;t made remark one about the political systems of any European country.

Feel free if you want, I look forward to hearing how erroneous your views are there too. However, this thread is about George Bush so it&#39;s hardly surprising that it&#39;s mostly about US politics is it?

You, on the other hand, can&#39;t make enough about mine, or the U.S.

The thread is about US politics you goof As for your views, I can only comment on what you post. Stop posting baseless drivel and I will stop pointing that drivel out.

You suffer the intolerance and tyranny of your extremism, and attempt to visit same on others who disagree with you, and you seem to have fixated on me.

What intolerance and tyranny? Care to provide examples? Or is this just one more baseless accusation from you, to add to the many. As for you, I have already said that I would attempt to expose the fallacies of anyone who posts as much baseless drivel as you (cf the guy defending Theresa). I can&#39;t help it if you post most of the crap here Stop thinking you are a special case, you are not.

While I am flattered by your obsessive behavior, I would not anticipate a dinner invitation.

Ah, back to the juvenile insults - with a gay undertone too&#33; Ok, maybe you are a special case. But only as in special ed maybe.

BTW-Please attend to your ignorance as to correct use of the "QUOTE" function.&nbsp;

You have no excuse for this, as everyone here has the same one, and your pretension precludes your reliance on the sham of it "not working".

Hmm you mean like you do? Typing Quote, followed by the quote in question? Or by using the tags? Oh dear you must be pretty desperate if you are attempting to use a board bug to belittle people now. I use code quotes whenever the board lets me, as do you. That is shown by when you don&#39;t use tags and just type Quote.

Want me to post some examples?

QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.

QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we&#39;d have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)

QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.

These are from this thread. Are you hoping no one would notice or something?

You sad little man heh. Every attempt at trying to be superior is shot down by your own inadequacies. First we had the laughs that were "estopped" and now quote tags.

Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?

Leftism, but I did answer him and provided links. He doesn&#39;t because he knows his first statement was fictitous and was hoping not to be pulled on it.

As do yours, sir.&nbsp;

How do you like it?

As I just said, I provided answers and links supporting those answers. So your are incorrect saying neither side presents data or evidence. Just you mate, just you.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As do yours, sir.&nbsp;

How do you like it?[/b]

Translation:

Originally posted by j2k4@
No I cant think of any good reason why anyone should answer my&nbsp; questions when I refuse to answer their&#39;s 5 times. I will however dig myself a deeper hole and ask another one.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Alpha-

Thank you-I feel the same way.[/quote]

After 5 attempts to get you to answer a simple question just think how 1234 feels

[clocker]

J2,
I have been ghosting along with this thread since it&#39;s inception and must admit that your assertion that 85% of SS assets is devoted to administration fees seems, well, very high.
Finally I decided to google a bit and found this link, a study devoted to exploring the potential costs of Bush&#39;s proposal to privatize SS.

They come up with a figure of between 1.1 and 1.8% for administration costs, which they admit is actually higher than current costs.

Even applying a generous fudge factor to the statistics, it doesn&#39;t begin to approach your figure of 85%.

What am I missing here?

[1234]

Damn Clocker, I was saving those figures till he actually attempted to prove his case&#33;

Ah well, they are out now

So j2k4, what is you response? We appear to have an 83% differential here, what&#39;s going on?

The board awaits with baited breath.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@14 January 2004 - 13:09

The board awaits with baited breath.

"Baited breath?"

I suggest you stop eating raw fish.

I believe you mean &#39;bated breath.

Very well.

I shall conduct an archival expedition in search of the correct figures.

I must off to work shortly, so I beg a bit of time to complete the appointed task.

I will say, for now, that the figure I quoted did not spring from a google or other web search, so this may take some time.

Edit:

Also-

If you can fight your way into those figures, I suspect you will find the 1.1%-1.8%

figures probably apply to the actual costs of distribution of money; i.e., postage to mail the checks.