AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

numnuts are possibly unique as well, no?

(or they just don't count)

Definition of 'numbnut' by Foxfyre:

1) Thinks personal insults intended to be unkind, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults. That might be annoying but it isn’t numbnuttiness.)

2) Follow members from thread to thread to insert insulting comments targeted at many or most of their posts.

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s posts or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of a topic can take place.

4) Spams the thread with frequent disruptive multiple long, wordy copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked.

5) Is incapable of or refuses to articulate a valid rebuttal or his/her rationale for a point of view but takes every opportunity to discredit or dispute the person or source and/or the way that a point of view is expressed.

6) Like to pile on, glad hand, and high five other numbnuts and are much braver if they can operate in packs.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again these are concepts that are incomprehensible to the numbnuts. Can you understand it?

you are beyond marvellous on days like this

you know, foxie, you are kinda backing into one of my favorite arguments...

why are the republicans Really afraid of healthcare, and what it would do to the party's future.

"Thinks personal insults intended to be unkind, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults."

did you have trouble typing this part with a straight face?

you sure do it a lot...

I'm glad to hear it.

will you join a valid debate at some point?

LIKE TOO MANY FEDERAL BENEFIT PROGRAMS, SINCE CARTER’S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEFT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES, SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS OF INCOME NOW ARE LESS THAN THE INCOME ONE COULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAVE OBTAINED FROM NVESTING PRIVATELY IN U.S. TREASURY BONDS.

The Social Security trust fund, for which the feds are allegedly its trustee, was turned into a pyramid club by Carter. He transferred the contents of the fund to the general fund to be spent as the feds wanted. Thereafter, all payroll deductions are deposited into the general fund. The treasury department writes IOUs to the Social Security Trust fund for all such transfers. Had Carter not made these transfers, he would have had to cut federal spending and/or raise taxes which were then already 70% on taxable income for the highest tax bracket.

A third or more of many people's retirement income comes from their checks from social security. Had they the opportunity over the (65 " 21) = 44 years until retirement to put all their employer's and their payroll deductions into US Treasury Bonds at 3.525% interest-- admittedly not the best investment available--their retirement income from that investment would be MORE than what it is now from Social Security.

For example:
At 3.525% interest per year from one’s own purchased Treasury Bonds, and annual social security payments of $10,000 for 44 years, the principal when 65 would be equal to $1,018,973.03
If one lives until 100 or 35 more years after 65, then after age 65, one’s 2.55% net interest per year after income taxes from one’s treasury bonds, there would be 35 equal annual income payments of $29,834.17. At age 100, the balance will be zero.

Rockhead wrote:

I'm glad to hear it.

will you join a valid debate at some point?

I'm debating the issue of whether Steyn made a valid point about voters and government dependency now. Why don't you change your mind and join it?

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another " say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government " whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract " is a central fact of your life.