Why would you post random Facebook trash like that in here?

 

I thought we could have fun de-crapping it

I thought we could have fun de-crapping it

Ah, ok, I get it.

 

But I have basketball to watch

"I'm sorry dear, I'm afraid you can't go back to preschool because they drew your number and you lost". Yay sequester!

North Carolina Republicans file a bill to nullify the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:

 

http://www.wral.com/proposal-would-allow-s...olina/12296876/

North Carolina Republicans file a bill to nullify the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:

 

http://www.wral.com/proposal-would-allow-s...olina/12296876/

I don't think it works that way....

 

And by "it" I mean being a remotely productive legislator.

Yeah I thought we settled that whole "nullification" thing around 1865...

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What’s wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal? - Louie Gohmert

 

Translating that from derp to English, what he said is imposing limits on magazine size is a bad idea because gay marriage leads to beastiality. Of course he is too dumb to realize he is mixing his slippery slope logical fallacies up and doesn't know what he actually said. Either limiting magazine size is a dangerous thing to do because of the slippery slope involved, and therefore you shouldn't put limits on who decides they should be able to get married... or, limiting marriage is a good idea, because of the slippery slope involved, and therefore we should impose limits on magazine sizes. He's framed a choice between legalizing gay marriage, or limiting high-capacity magazines. One or the other. Not both.

if you outlaw high capacity magazines, only gay-married cousins in polygamous marraiges with their dogs will have high capacity magazines

if you outlaw high capacity magazines, only gay-married cousins in polygamous marraiges with their dogs will have high capacity magazines

and that just goes against what Murca stands for. or something.

Nowhere else to really put this but...

 

Jebus, please tell me schools don't really have segregated proms still.

Nowhere else to really put this but...

 

Jebus, please tell me schools don't really have segregated proms still.

What I read elsewhere is that these proms are held by private groups, not the school, and that the school doesn't hold its own prom.

 

Still, that's f***ing ridiculous.

What I read elsewhere is that these proms are held by private groups, not the school, and that the school doesn't hold its own prom.

 

Still, that's f***ing ridiculous.

One of the comments in the article I linked said that schools would have their own "official" prom that everyone was invited to, but that most people went to the "invitation only" prom.

Ugh, I have little doubt that Obama whole-heartily embraces the idea of cutting entitlements, harming those with the least among us, as part of a 'Grand Bargain,' not that he's doing so reluctantly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/socia...witter&_r=0

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say.

 

 

Now combine that with his "straight talk" on Keystone:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/polit....html?_r=1&

 

Mr. Obama appears to be leaning toward approval of the pipeline, although he did not specifically mention it to the donors. But he acknowledged that it is difficult to sell aggressive environmental action to Americans who are still struggling in a difficult economy to pay bills, buy gas and save for retirement.

 

“You may be concerned about the temperature of the planet, but it’s probably not rising to your number-one concern,” Mr. Obama said. “And if people think, well, that’s shortsighted, that’s what happens when you’re struggling to get by.”

 

There are so many more ways we could be helping the economy and American citizens than by building this dumb pipeline. Why not do one of those instead?

The idea of Social Security contributing to the deficit is a big con job, it's literally impossible for Social Security to go bankrupt unless suddenly people stop being born. I guess people are ok with being told otherwise, though. It's not that it's insolvent, it's just been pillaged.

He's negotiating with himself again. He's either the worst negotiator on the planet or he just thinks this is a good idea.

He wants Republicans to meet him halfway on revenues and show that he's willing to come off something important to him, but... f***, does he have to sound so enthusiastic about it?

The idea of Social Security contributing to the deficit is a big con job, it's literally impossible for Social Security to go bankrupt unless suddenly people stop being born. I guess people are ok with being told otherwise, though. It's not that it's insolvent, it's just been pillaged.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions.

 

I know, I'm crazy.

There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions.

 

I know, I'm crazy.

This is something that they say so they can, quite literally, steal your money.

This is something that they say so they can, quite literally, steal your money.

 

Exactly.

BTW, Social Security makes a lot more sense if you think of it as an insurance program rather than something like a pension. Actually now that I think about it, its official name is Social Security and Disability Insurance.

BTW, Social Security makes a lot more sense if you think of it as an insurance program rather than something like a pension. Actually now that I think about it, its official name is Social Security and Disability Insurance.

Close, it's "old age, survivor and disability insurance". OASDI. (I learned that in ~2006 because everyone got uncomfortable writing posts about how we needed to save SS).

Close, it's "old age, survivor and disability insurance". OASDI. (I learned that in ~2006 because everyone got uncomfortable writing posts about how we needed to save SS).

You are right. I was thinking of that acronym and I wrote the other one absent-mindedly.

There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions.

 

I know, I'm crazy.

:wub: :wub:

 

Yeah, most people my age have fully bought into the rhetoric that they'll be getting nothing back from social security. At worst, in about three decades, it'll only pay out ~85% of required benefits. As you said, it could be fixed very easily (either raise the rate a tick or, much more appropriately, raise or eliminate the regressive FICA cap).

:wub: :wub:

 

Yeah, most people my age have fully bought into the rhetoric that they'll be getting nothing back from social security. At worst, in about three decades, it'll only pay out ~85% of required benefits. As you said, it could be fixed very easily (either raise the rate a tick or, much more appropriately, raise or eliminate the regressive FICA cap).

Also worth noting is that 85% of required benefits at the time (~2040) being paid out would still be a larger amount paid out per beneficiary than there is today.