Daddy, daddy! Make those bad democrats stop stealing our federal dollars!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Alec (Old-Tyrant) Baldwin... LMAO

Hey, IIFFy, is that YOU in the video? It kind of sounds like you.

By the way, I know you are very busy so you must have overlooked it:


A simple question. You “know” I am a employee of one of those organizations—so either identify which one, or admit you, like your mentor, are a pathetic liar.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Old-T

So who is your employer so I can stop by and visit?

Originally Posted by Old-T

Absolutely not!!

It was IIFFy who seemed so keen on knowing where I worked (he requested multiple times before my post that you referenced). I assumed he wanted to meet so I thought I would save him the trip--I travel often and might be in his neighborhood some time.

I insult and ridicule, but I don't threaten.

Maybe you should ask IIFFy the same question, no? I can't speak for his intentions.

He did not ask you where you worked. He asked what dept you worked for in a massive federal govt. At least in the post I saw. Nor did he say he would "follow up" with that dept.

You asked WHERE he worked so you could go by and VISIT his employer.

Sounds like threatening to out a member to me.

[Old-T]

Not true!!! I offered to visit HIM, not his employer.

And why would HE care what department I worked in--even after I told him I am NOT a gov't employee? The only reasonable explanation I could think of was that he wanted to come over and buy me a cup of coffee--I have often admitted my coffee addiction. Can you think of any other legitimate reason he would want to know?

[cowboyinjungle]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

jamiboyinjungle= Ozombie...

That must of took you a long time to come up with that. I really didn't think you would answer any question, I can't recall you ever answering anybody's questions. You better quit drinking that moonshine, it must really be killing your brain cells.

[Old-T]

You assume he had any functioning brain cells even before the drinking. I wouldn't be too sure of that.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

That must of took you a long time to come up with that. I really didn't think you would answer any question, I can't recall you ever answering anybody's questions. You better quit drinking that moonshine, it must really be killing your brain cells.

jamiboyinjungle, If you need some one to talk to... address Old-Trollop He will type out pages of stupid stuff and when he gets back, Y'all can snuggle and spoon.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

jamiboyinjungle, If you need some one to talk to... address Old-Trollop He will type out pages of stupid stuff and when he gets back, Y'all can snuggle and spoon.

After your post #31 you have the audacity to complain about anyone else's post lengths?

Pathetic little boy.

And you still haven't answered EITHER question, blowhard.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

jamiboyinjungle, If you need some one to talk to... address Old-Trollop He will type out pages of stupid stuff and when he gets back, Y'all can snuggle and spoon.

I think there's an excellent chance that Dipshit of the Year will never be contested again. of course, you're going to have to study up to raise your IQ above 60 Slobbrin.

[I B Hankering]

Here's a question-answer session for you, Old-Twerp. You need to put down the bottle and read very carefully, Old-Twerp. In fact, Old-Twerp, you may need to put down the bottle and wait two or three hours to sober up, and THEN read very carefully, Old-Twerp.

1. Is Old-Twerp a moronic hypocrite? Yes, Old-Twerp is a moronic hypocrite. Old-Twerp moronically and hypocritically made an issue out of Federal dollars spent in Red States; yet, Old-Twerp was snared into admitting that he hypocritically stands in the payroll line to hypocritically pad his wallet with Federal dollars spent in a Red State while Old-Twerp whines about and denigrates Federal dollars spent in Red States!

2. Is Old-Twerp stupid? Yes, Old-Twerp is very stupid because: a) Old-Twerp stupidly refers to states such as Montana, New Mexico, Maine, South Dakota and Arizona as states in "Dixie". b) Old-Twerp further reveals how stupid Old-Twerp is when he sarcastically remarked that the acronym for the "DOD" is never "DOD". c) Old-Twerp's stupidity is magnified when Old-Twerp stupidly ignores that NASCAR holds races in non-southern states such as NASCAR's Nationwide Series which runs a race on the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course in his favored state of OHIO! d) Old-Twerp again demonstrated how stupid Old-Twerp is when Old-Twerp "threw" the wrong "through" into one of his stupid sentences.

3. Is Old-Twerp a troll? Yes, Old-Twerp admitted he is a troll.

4. Is Old-Twerp a liar? Yes, Old-Twerp lied when he claimed he was merely providing facts and statistics, because he then -- to reiterate that Old-Twerp is truly stupid -- admitted he is an agitating, sanctimonious troll and not the innocent and morally upright Pollyanna he disingenuously pretends to be.

[Yssup Rider]

Is IBIdiot serious about this shit? Yes.

Does IBIdiot have a personality? No.

Does IBIdiot participate in the hobby? Depends.

Is IBIdiot a lying, narcissistic, uneducated, redneck sack of shit? ABSOLUTELY!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Can you think of any other legitimate reason he would want to know?

Don't forget, this is Gonad the smelly ol' Turdfly that you were referring to.

Turdy does not have the capacity to "think' on his own.

He just buzzes around waiting for the Idiot Klan, errrr clan to give him his next set of instructions.

[lustylad]

Old Twerp never mentions it, but there are big problems with the logic and methodology behind studies of this kind.

1. The federal government keeps running huge deficits. In recent years, the feds have been spending as much as $3 for every $2 they collect in taxes. If every state was treated the same proportionally, then EVERY STATE would show more dollars flowing in than going out - simply because the federal government overall spends a lot more than it takes in. Does this make anyone who criticizes the federal government's over-spending and addiction to deficits and debt a "hypocrite"? Of course not.

2. These studies are used by libtards to play gotcha. It's like the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. If a state turns it down, the libtards scream look how stupid you are for not taking all those federal dollars. If a state accepts it, the libtards scream look how hypocritical you are for opposing Obamacare while taking the money. In this way, libtards deflect the debate away from any discussion of whether the federal program is well-conceived in the first place. Libtards are always trying to get conservatives on the dole because it helps them to maintain and justify the dole.

3. The argument that federal money allows states to keep their own taxes low is specious. Federal money is dispensed to pay for federal mandates. State governments are closer to the people. They often get involved to make sure the money isn't totally misspent. This doesn't mean the states would raise taxes to pay for wasteful or unneeded federal programs if the feds stopped funding them.

4. Be wary of drawing conclusions without looking at the details. Many Americans earn their incomes in northern states but retire in southern states. They pay into SS and Medicare while they are working, and take out benefits upon retirement. Insofar as this explains the flow of federal dollars, it doesn't prove anything except that older people like to spend their golden years in the Sunbelt.

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Mississippi: 50th, i.e. the MOST fed dependent state in the country (actually tied with NM)

Alabama: 49th
Louisiana: 48th
Tennessee: 45th
Kentucky: 41st
South Carolina: 40th
Florida: 38th
Georgia: 33rd
Texas: 32nd
Virginia: 26th
North Carolina: 24th
Arkansas: 22nd

Is that representative enough of Dixie for you? And please, don't insult us with "Kentucky doesn't count!", you know they are as plantation loving as anywhere.

Oh, and other than Florida, they were all republican wins in the 2012 election. Do you see a trend here?

Just for comparison, let's look at a couple places you love to hate:
Illinois: 2nd
New York: 17th.

Hmmmm......

While we are at it, let's look at the others:
New Mexico: voted Democrat
Maine: voted Democrat
Montana: voted Republican
South Dakota: voted Republican
Arizona: voted Republican
and let's not ignore West Virginia, another red state.

Even an English major can see a very strong correlation here, no?

Hey Old Twerp, if the correlation is so strong, then I have a sure-fire way to turn all those red states blue - just stop all the federal money flowing their way! Sound like a plan? Good - now run along and tell the DNC about it!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here's a question-answer session for you, Old-Twerp. You need to put down the bottle and read very carefully, Old-Twerp. In fact, Old-Twerp, you may need to put down the bottle and wait two or three hours to sober up, and THEN read very carefully, Old-Twerp. Pitiful little IB. Still with your drunk fantasies. I did share a nice bottle of wine with my overnight lady last night, but that is not quite the same as your continual binges.

1. Is Old-Twerp a moronic hypocrite? Snared? I don't think so. I have always admitted that I am a kindly, compassionate soul who is more than willing to help decent Southerners just as I am any others. Unfortunately that does not include you, for you are beyond help.

2. Is Old-Twerp stupid? IBBrainless, I would suggest you take a course in statistics, one in counting, and maybe one in journalism. But on second thought you don't have the mental capacity for any of those.

3. Is Old-Twerp a troll? As I said, even counting whole numbers is clearly beyond you. You cannot comprehend that a post might be made for a primary reason, as well as a second (that means a #2 reason--2 is the number after 1) fortuitous additional reason. Poking stupid, helpless posters like you in the virtual eye with a virtual stick would hardly ever be the main reason I do anything. You just aren't significant enough to waste a lot of energy on (fortunately ripping your "logic" apart doesn't take much energy). By the way, someone with almost 10,000 posts more than I have (almost all of no socially redeeming value) should be careful who he calls a troll.

4. Is Old-Twerp a liar? Poor IB. When I state unequivocally that I am your moral and intellectual superior, that is simple truth. The fact that you are incapable of seeing it--or maybe you see it but it gags you to admit it--doesn't make it any less so. So, which of these simple facts do you claim is a lie?

Mississippi: 50th, i.e. the MOST fed dependent state in the country (actually tied with NM)

Alabama: 49th
Louisiana: 48th
Tennessee: 45th
Kentucky: 41st
South Carolina: 40th
Florida: 38th
Georgia: 33rd
Texas: 32nd
Virginia: 26th
North Carolina: 24th
Arkansas: 22nd

Illinois: 2nd
New York: 17th.
.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Old Twerp never mentions it, but there are big problems with the logic and methodology behind studies of this kind.

1. The federal government keeps running huge deficits. In recent years, the feds have been spending as much as $3 for every $2 they collect in taxes. If every state was treated the same proportionally, then EVERY STATE would show more dollars flowing in than going out - simply because the federal government overall spends a lot more than it takes in. Does this make anyone who criticizes the federal government's over-spending and addiction to deficits and debt a "hypocrite"? Of course not. I agree with you--criticizing deficit spending doesn't make someone a hypocrite. I don't like deficit spending either, though I disagree with some on how to get spending under control. The people I have serious issues with are those who blindly scream and yell about "wealth transfer" among individuals but have no issue with THEIR state taking a disproportionate slice of the federal pie. Of course not everyone should get the same, nor should every state--and many of the reasons different states get additional $$$ are legit (and many are not). Just asking why some (see IB for example) can't even comprehend the point.

2. These studies are used by libtards to play gotcha. It's like the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. If a state turns it down, the libtards scream look how stupid you are for not taking all those federal dollars. If a state accepts it, the libtards scream look how hypocritical you are for opposing Obamacare while taking the money. In this way, libtards deflect the debate away from any discussion of whether the federal program is well-conceived in the first place. Libtards are always trying to get conservatives on the dole because it helps them to maintain and justify the dole. The basic problem we have with "the dole" is the same as we have with too many other political hot buttons: the "All or Nothing" perspective. Yes, we have TOO MUCH gov't spending, and we are giving TOO MUCH to some folks how don't need/deserve it. Unfortunately the Cruz-ites can only put forth stupid, inhumane options on the table. The budget didn't get grossly misaligned overnight, and simplistic "fixes" that target a fraction of the citizens to take all the pain of fixing it is wrong. When the Reps and Dems start talking shared pain and reasonable bipartisan solutions we might start fixing things. Sadly neither side has shown any such willingness (and passing bills in either house that are DOA in the other is not a sign of reasonableness).

3. The argument that federal money allows states to keep their own taxes low is specious. Federal money is dispensed to pay for federal mandates. State governments are closer to the people. They often get involved to make sure the money isn't totally misspent. This doesn't mean the states would raise taxes to pay for wasteful or unneeded federal programs if the feds stopped funding them. That is certainly true of SOME federal $$, but not all. Most states DO use federal $$ to pay for all variety of things, many of which would be state funded if not for the federal funds.

4. Be wary of drawing conclusions without looking at the details. Many Americans earn their incomes in northern states but retire in southern states. They pay into SS and Medicare while they are working, and take out benefits upon retirement. Insofar as this explains the flow of federal dollars, it doesn't prove anything except that older people like to spend their golden years in the Sunbelt. That is a fair point. I do not know what amount that--or DoD expenditures, or interstate highway money, or Mississippi flood control money, etc--account for. Which is why, contrary to IBBlitheringIdiot's posts, I never once stated that the unequal flow of $$$ was wrong. But Good Ol' IB is incapable of actually reading what I post before going into a scalding meltdown that may or may not have anything to do with what I posted.

.

.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Old-Thumper ... you SHIT it, you own it... quit back tracking