The rats of VCT Boz, MisterV, REDietz, UNKewlJ

[accountinquestion]

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

There is free speech. People can eject you yes, but you are free to say what you wish. You will not be arrested for what you say unless it is vulgar or deemed disorderly conduct.

These are 2 separate issues.

Freedom of speech in relation to America is strictly that the government doesn't tell people what they can and can't say. THe modern "conservative" seems to have this completely flipped. They seem to think Twitter should be forced to publish everything.

You're free to speak you're just not free to remain on someone's property.

This new take on "free speech" is really a peeve of mine.

The free speech that I am used to hearing about it the same freedom of speech that people sue government officials (cops) over. Government employees are largely indemnified to lawsuits but under certain circumstances if they violate your free speech (typically freedom of press) then they can be sued for breaking your Constitutional rights. Basically "freedom of speech" just means the government can't tell us what we can and can't say. Nothing more. (in my world).

Conservatives don't believe X should publish everything. They demand that conservative opinion not be censored while wide open progressive opinion goes uncensored. It was a violation of freedom of speech for them to do that. And the government had no business making the old guard at Twitter censor conservative speech.

That what gets me about you libs. You ignore the corruption of the left.

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.

You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.

Thats it. Nothing more to it.

[PositiveVariance]

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

[Treeshade]

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

Freedom of speech issues against private business have been litigated and won multiple times at the Supreme Court leveL. I linked a few a couple post back I believe. Just because Shakira doesn’t have the money to sue a business for throwing her out; Because she expressed her love for Biden doesn’t mean she wouldn’t win if she did.

In addition there are very few business that meet the private test. In fact most do not when testing against your constitutional rights. Zenking pointed this out once I believe on WOV in regards to being trespassed at casinos He was right.

The business owner gets saved because the poor ass people they throw out don’t care enough to sue. When they get taken to court they lose all unless there was a real threat or disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a easy to prove because often customers get loud if there’s a disagreement.

As far as casinos are concerned APs can use this weird social climate to your advantage. Just make sure you select non binary or don’t check a gender when renewing your license. This opens up all types of lawsuits if you control, and socially engineer a back off towards a discriminatory lawsuit. One should rehearse how to get security into these situations if approached aggressively.

[accountinquestion]

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

Freedom of speech issues against private business have been litigated and won multiple times at the Supreme Court leveL. I linked a few a couple post back I believe. Just because Shakira doesn’t have the money to sue a business for throwing her out; Because she expressed her love for Biden doesn’t mean she wouldn’t win if she did.

In addition there are very few business that meet the private test. In fact most do not when testing against your constitutional rights. Zenking pointed this out once I believe on WOV in regards to being trespassed at casinos He was right.

The business owner gets saved because the poor ass people they throw out don’t care enough to sue. When they get taken to court they lose all unless there was a real threat or disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a easy to prove because often customers get loud if there’s a disagreement.

As far as casinos are concerned APs can use this weird social climate to your advantage. Just make sure you select non binary or don’t check a gender when renewing your license. This opens up all types of lawsuits if you control, and socially engineer a back off towards a discriminatory lawsuit. One should rehearse how to get security into these situations if approached aggressively.

No you didn't.

[mickeycrimm]

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.
You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.Thats it. Nothing more to it.

Your argument is the typical leftist argument for censorship today. "It's private business." But it wasn't all that long ago that this very same argument was used by conservatives to censor radio and television. And the liberals were screaming bloody murder about it. It was a long hard fight for liberals to get the right to free speech on the airwaves.

But then the the power in media changed from conservative to liberal. Now conservatives are screaming about censorship and liberals are saying "To fucking bad. It's private business."

You can't make this shit up.

[accountinquestion]

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.
You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.Thats it. Nothing more to it.

Your argument is the typical leftist argument for censorship today. "It's private business." But it wasn't all that long ago that this very same argument was used by conservatives to censor radio and television. And the liberals were screaming bloody murder about it. It was a long hard fight for liberals to get the right to free speech on the airwaves.

But then the the power in media changed from conservative to liberal. Now conservatives are screaming about censorship and liberals are saying "To fucking bad. It's private business."

You can't make this shit up.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.

What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days.

"Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything.

In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.


PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=accountinquestion;16476I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days."Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything. In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.

PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.[/QUOTE]

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

[accountinquestion]

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;164772]

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=accountinquestion;164778]

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

[accountinquestion]

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

[MisterV]

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

[accountinquestion]

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

I'm not even anti-SS. The article glosses over how there is also no guarantee you'll be paid. Ponzis pay out some too. The big part here is that existing recipients are paid off the backs of current investors. But yes SS misses the intent to defraud. It is also based on the whims of politics even if chance seems small.

Personally I like SS. We don't need a ton of broke old people out in the streets because they didn't have the ability to produce and save.

[MaxPen]

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

I'm not even anti-SS. The article glosses over how there is also no guarantee you'll be paid. Ponzis pay out some too. The big part here is that existing recipients are paid off the backs of current investors. But yes SS misses the intent to defraud. It is also based on the whims of politics even if chance seems small.

Personally I like SS. We don't need a ton of broke old people out in the streets because they didn't have the ability to produce and save.

Everyone will get paid. There's an unlimited supply of money. The only question is what will it buy?...lol

[mickeycrimm]

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

Stock market was at 400 before the crash. Took 4 years for it to bottom out at 70. Then slow climb back up. By 1935 market had risen to just 125, not even a third of what it was in 1929. Why? Pretty simple. People wouldn't buy stocks. They were scared to death of the stock market, liberals, conservatives, everybody.

I've never looked into COLA calculations. Dude, do you know I have things to do besides look into COLA calculations? Quit trying to invent work for me.

So one does not have to be liberal to hate Trump. How nice. Well, guess what, one does not have to be a conservative to hate the far left. Is that educating you enough?

You're not picking my arguments apart, you've picking your nose.

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored. According to you conservatives are all liars so should have no say. It's you ignorant ass libtards that censored big tech and the media. You're side are the big ass fucking liars.

If I haven't answered all your questions to fucking bad. There's a casino downstairs and I'm headed down to it. I've got other things to do, comrade.

[Rob.Singer]

It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread for lack of something better to do. And for his sake it's a good thing he chooses to do so on this particular forum, because so few people get to see the truly dumb things he comes up with.

Find a hobby AQ...or find a friend to talk to. Best make sure they're not a professional in anything before you consumate the friendship though.

[accountinquestion]

It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread for lack of something better to do. And for his sake it's a good thing he chooses to do so on this particular forum, because so few people get to see the truly dumb things he comes up with.

Find a hobby AQ...or find a friend to talk to. Best make sure they're not a professional in anything before you consumate the friendship though.

LMAO. That is the best you can do? I troll you first time in months and I get "It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread".

Yes, I have nothing better to do at the time or I'd do it. Yes. Much like you.

WHy does your ass post on here? BRO - you are literally following Kewl around with your nose up his ass. Just you are not trying to inhale it you are exhaling it. LLOLOLOLOL

good stuff.

[accountinquestion]

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

Stock market was at 400 before the crash. Took 4 years for it to bottom out at 70. Then slow climb back up. By 1935 market had risen to just 125, not even a third of what it was in 1929. Why? Pretty simple. People wouldn't buy stocks. They were scared to death of the stock market, liberals, conservatives, everybody.

I've never looked into COLA calculations. Dude, do you know I have things to do besides look into COLA calculations? Quit trying to invent work for me.

So one does not have to be liberal to hate Trump. How nice. Well, guess what, one does not have to be a conservative to hate the far left. Is that educating you enough?

You're not picking my arguments apart, you've picking your nose.

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored. According to you conservatives are all liars so should have no say. It's you ignorant ass libtards that censored big tech and the media. You're side are the big ass fucking liars.

If I haven't answered all your questions to fucking bad. There's a casino downstairs and I'm headed down to it. I've got other things to do, comrade.

COLA calculations are very significant. If you made 100k a year 30 years ago it is vastly different from making 100k today. How does COLA impact that?

I do not know how the underlying calculation works. Although I care I don't care enough to dig through google. Google has become near worthless for these types of questions.

I'm not picking my ass I am picking Rob's nose out of Kewl's ass !! badda bing

.....There is a animated gif out there somewhere.... it'll show the true extent of that big nose.. suitable for Kewl.

It may not just be MrV.

I drank too much tonight. When sober I promise I will go easier on Rob. My problem when drunk is that it amplifies how funny I find my own jokes.

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored.

Not at all. I feel the Constitution should be absolute over all partisanship. This means they shouldn't be able to FORCE Twitter to post things of a certain nature.

Nuances invite corruption. The interpretation becomes too malleable. We can agree to a few (obscenities etc) but outside that? nah.

The Constitution might be outdated but I still find it to be a very strong framework.

[MDawg]

At least the rat admits what he did, as far as the doxxing.

And YES I believe you need to be exposed for the shit you have posted here and on other forums.

And “maybe” I was wrong about the guy I thought was you, has nothing to do with this.

His retraction of his claim that he sent in the letters he claimed he wrote to the casinos, does not fit well with his claim of

I’m as real as they get.

[kewlJ]

Someone sent me a private message today (it wasn't Boz, but not going to say who), suggesting I re-read the first posts of The Mdawg adventure thread (the original or part 1) at WoV.

So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?

Ok so in the second post second line we get this: This will be my thread where I post on my VEGAS trips. At least until I get bored and start posting in one of my own forums. This was the first mention and frankly one I didn't remember of "his own forum". That would be the forum that Boz screenshot from with all the different threads attacking all the different people that didn't believe his story. It should be noted that this forum that he advertises in his signature is a forum for writers! That would be people writing stories, which is exactly what Mdawg is. He is a good writer.

Another paragraph further down in that second post (first with words) and he writes: These days My Intent is to play more for comps and fun than to try to kill the house.

Boy wouldn't that have been great!! I was looking forward to accounts from a higher end player that won and lost with focus on comps. But that is not what we got, is it?

Mdawg, my issue with you was never personal. I don't know if you are really wealthy or not, or if so how wealthy and I don't care. I don't know if you are an attorney or not (but your behavior on forums doesn't seem like that of an attorney). I don't care if you are a high end Rolex watch salesman or rep as some have suggested. I don't even care if you are a gambler, who loses more than he win (which is now obvious).

My only concern was that your accounts of all the winning defied the mathematics of gambling and the way Las Vegas and the casino industry works. And it has only grown 100 times worse as time has gone on.

As far as I am concerned this is over. On forums like this you don't even attempt to continue to talk about your great adventure any longer. You just troll. At WoV where my concerns originated, the "adventure thread" has now turned into more or less a misc thread. You still occasionally try to work in some account of your play, but you get no reaction or response. So I am satisfied that whatever threat I felt you were, you no longer are.

You can keep trolling me and probably will. But it changes nothing about me, what I am, nor you and what you are. It isn't going to bring your credibility back.

I would prefer you pivot and share what you should have all along the winning and losing of a higher end player focused on comps. That is a good topic that many of us would enjoy and you are in fact a good writer, which is obviously an interest since you own a forum for and about writers.

Good luck to you.

[Rob.Singer]

Someone sent me a private message today (it wasn't Boz, but not going to say who), suggesting I re-read the first posts of The Mdawg adventure thread (the original or part 1) at WoV.

So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?

Ok so in the second post second line we get this: This will be my thread where I post on my VEGAS trips. At least until I get bored and start posting in one of my own forums. This was the first mention and frankly one I didn't remember of "his own forum". That would be the forum that Boz screenshot from with all the different threads attacking all the different people that didn't believe his story. It should be noted that this forum that he advertises in his signature is a forum for writers! That would be people writing stories, which is exactly what Mdawg is. He is a good writer.

Another paragraph further down in that second post (first with words) and he writes: These days My Intent is to play more for comps and fun than to try to kill the house.

Boy wouldn't that have been great!! I was looking forward to accounts from a higher end player that won and lost with focus on comps. But that is not what we got, is it?

Mdawg, my issue with you was never personal. I don't know if you are really wealthy or not, or if so how wealthy and I don't care. I don't know if you are an attorney or not (but your behavior on forums doesn't seem like that of an attorney). I don't care if you are a high end Rolex watch salesman or rep as some have suggested. I don't even care if you are a gambler, who loses more than he win (which is now obvious).

My only concern was that your accounts of all the winning defied the mathematics of gambling and the way Las Vegas and the casino industry works. And it has only grown 100 times worse as time has gone on.

As far as I am concerned this is over. On forums like this you don't even attempt to continue to talk about your great adventure any longer. You just troll. At WoV where my concerns originated, the "adventure thread" has now turned into more or less a misc thread. You still occasionally try to work in some account of your play, but you get no reaction or response. So I am satisfied that whatever threat I felt you were, you no longer are.

You can keep trolling me and probably will. But it changes nothing about me, what I am, nor you and what you are. It isn't going to bring your credibility back.

I would prefer you pivot and share what you should have all along the winning and losing of a higher end player focused on comps. That is a good topic that many of us would enjoy and you are in fact a good writer, which is obviously an interest since you own a forum for and about writers.

Good luck to you.

The longer your essays, the more lies you can't help yourself from telling. You ABSOLUTELY ARE affected by the idea that Mdawg has all these assets, because as a failed low-level gambler who's big mistake in life was moving to LV, only to end up perpetually sharing expenses with mommy and baby bro, he quite simply makes you feel like the small nobody you really know you are.

"So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?"

It's easy: he wants to irritate the living shit out of you, and he has 100% succeeded in doing so.

BTW, no one "sent you a PM" today. That's a loser's way of satisfying your craving to continue lying about someone else AND YOUR PATHETIC SELF and continually trying to convince others of your twisted views. Blaming your rant on receipt of a "PM" is nothing but chickenshit mental illness.