Chucktshoes

:lol: you know, I haven't really seen that many in my travels and not all of us hate ourselves that much to partake. That said, yeah, throw that infection vector in the mix too. :lol:

The government needs the Chinese to keep buying its debt more than it needs the pensioners sucking at the tit. Also, the set instruments bought by the Chinese represent and actual contract. No such contract exists between you and the government regarding SS.

Especially when you can't convince the driver of that tanker full of liquid oxygen that he's about to drive into a brick wall just over the next hill.

Nope, the other leaches in the government get their cut first. It couldn't happen any other way.

I don't generally vote anymore, but I'd vote or that.

What's Paul Ryan got to do with fiscal responsibility? :lol: Like I said before, just because someone stole money from you doesn't justify you stealing it from someone else. If you are cool with enjoying the fruits of theft, that's on you buddy.

I'm just trying to see I I can chase the tin foil behatted into their bunkers. :lol: Also:

Mike, it was declared a tax in 1937, just after it's inception. It is the only way that it was able to be declared constitutional. If it hadn't been declared a tax, it wouldn't exist. Does that sound at all familiar to you? P.S. Government voting away a tax? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I would agree with all of this except one very important thing. The original premise regarding SS is faulty. Governments are completely incapable of "growing the economy". Governments can only have negative effects on the economy by retarding growth through taxation. The smaller the government and the less it removes from the economy, the less negative its effects are. Every dollar the government spends was previously removed from legitimate economic activity and carries with it and exponentially large cumulative economic loss due to its absence.

Mike, that's my point, there was never any contract. What SS really is does matter because that is what determined whether a contract was even possible or not, and the answer is "not". SS is two things, a tax and a welfare program. You can't decline consent to the first and have no right to the second. No contract was ever possible. It is all very clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print.

It's a real bitch to get told that you got taken, isn't it? When you find out that thing you thought was a good deal was really just a scam. Luke, you should be concerned with those SCOTUS cases for the simple reason that they explain the truth of what SS really is, and it isn't what you've think you've bought. When I speak of "no accrued property rights", I am not talking about an account somewhere marked with your name on it that you will draw from. I mean that the government can change the criteria for receiving the welfare portion of SS tomorrow, making you ineligible to get it, and you would have absolutely zero legal grounds to contest it. You would have to accept your lumps and move on without it. Mike, nope. The fund is, and always has been nothing more than an accounting trick. Nothing more than a line item on the ledger that could be (and was!) shifted one place or another as needed.

Go on and on about travel bans all you want. The virus will spread regardless of what governments do. For the tinfoilers fretting about the end of the world from Ebola, I'd like to present to you the "Nairobi Tabletop Scenario". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141015-ebola-virus-outbreak-pandemic-zoonotic-contagion/ Let me add to it a little. Now imagine that businessman's brother, whom he visits with once he gets home, is a truck driver. He passes along Ebola with an errant cough on him. The trucker brother goes on the road the next day for 3 weeks. He crisscrosses the country from coast to coast leaving it with fuel desk attendants, fast food clerks and waitresses all along the way.

I would look to Tipton or Fayette counties or even farther out. Gonna have to push your drive times to that hour mark or even possibly a bit more to get what you are after.

Exactly.

This is what so many don't realize about SS, it isn't in any way shape form or fashion a retirement program. It is really two things. On one end it is a payroll tax just like any other and is deposited into the treasury without any earmark. On the other end it is a welfare program. Neither end creates an accrued property right to the money that was stolen from the folks paying in. If you doubt that, consult the 1960 SCOTUS decision Fleming v. Nestor which stated that nobody has a right to collect SS and Helvering v. Davis (1937), where the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

Oh, to the OP, good luck. I left a job full of terrible management types this year as well. It's a wonderful feeling to know you are free from a particular hell and that the future has possibility again.

If you can't afford to save, then you AREN'T living within your means no matter how much you think you are. The reality is that most folks don't have as much means as they think they do. As far as social security goes, just because person A stole from person B, it doesn't justify person B stealing from person C.

I was at the fedex facility by DFW picking up a load a couple of days ago. The gate guard asked us, "have you visited West Africa or been in contact with someone who has been to West Africa in the last 30 days." :lol:

Saw them open up for Katy Perry last week. Really enjoyed them. Been a familiar with them for about 15 years, just the first time I got to see them live. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9NSMY8QiQ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGbOmW4AjI

Items paid for with EBT are not charged sales tax. The amount paid for with a coupon is reimbursed as cash by the issuer of that coupon. That is the reason that tax is collected on the amount paid for by a coupon.

“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy.” — John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

As always, innocent people are punished because of potential misuse by others. Here's an idea, how about we quit trying to tell folks how to conduct their lives and let them do what they choose as long as they don't violate others. We must end this immoral war on drugs.

No. There's got to be a big chunk of data missing from this equation.

[quote name="TMF" post="1189841" timestamp="1410748185"]It isn't about wishing for it to happen, this is about it being a very likely outcome as he chooses to ratchet it up. You think he will stop at body armor, rifle and yelling like a madman??? He will take this further, causing someone to have REASONABLE fear for their lives or the lives if others and he will be shot. He does not exist in a vacuum. Believe it or not, people with guns have watched the news, and active shooter events happen. How many threads are on this very damn site regarding how one would act to an active shooter? You think nobody will take him as one when he takes it to the next level? I do, and the shooter all absolutely be justified for shooting him according to the law.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] I'd be predisposed to return a no-bill on that indictment if I was on the grand jury, not that I think it would ever make it to a grand jury. Because of his history, I would expect LE agencies in the area to familiarize their officers with him, but I wouldn't expect the average person to have any idea who this fucknut is. While I really do hate what he is doing, I don't wish harm to come to him. I just expect it to happen eventually. My prior "defense" of him had nothing to do with him or his actions and everything to do with the blatant malfeasance of the government in handling his shenanigans. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD