The Next US President

[Forexmospherian]

I have a very difficult question for hhiusa

Please provide proof that just one candidate from any political US party has proper integrity and has never been bribed by Trump or the Mafia and really does want to represent the people of the USA and has no interest in purely self gain.

If you can come up with a candidate - do you think he or she has any chance of winning ?

Don't worry if this might take a week or a few months to answer - because I accept its a really difficult question

Thank you


F

 

[hhiusa]

Same ol sh1t

Do you read any newspapers, books or magazines?

Shame you don't apply your same tripe to your aryan beliefs! :idea:

That is basically an admission of guilt and fault right there. Since you have not been paying attention. I will tell you. I have not stated anything that required substantiation. I have been remarking upon what you guys have said already. Pointing out your fallacious arguments is a form of substantiation. Try using logic sometime.

 

[mike.]

popcorn consumption on this thread = Excessive.

 

[hhiusa]

I have a very difficult question for hhiusa

Please provide proof that just one candidate from any political US party has proper integrity and has never been bribed by Trump or the Mafia and really does want to represent the people of the USA and has no interest in purely self gain.

If you can come up with a candidate - do you think he or she has any chance of winning ?

Thank you
F

The burden of proof is on you not me. The initial person who states the outlandish and unsubstantiated remarks is the one who is required to furnish proof.

Stop with the diversion tactics and just answer the questions. I will say for a third time prove it. You have not cited any sources for your claims. Stop changing the subject. You do not get to throw ridiculous statements out there and then turn to me and ask for proof. I do not need to provide proof of anything as I have not stated anything that requires it yet.

Don't worry if this might take a week or a few months to answer - because I accept its a really difficult question

Again, that is completely ironic as you have failed to answer or respond to any of my statements yet. I am still awaiting a response concerning your statements about Trump. It does indeed seem to be a difficult task for you to provide any evidence for your claims.

You seem to miss the point that I was not arguing for a specific candidate, but I was requiring you to put your money with your mouth is when you open it. Debate only works if you can use logical arguments.

Banks are like Lawyers and marketing people ie they are parasites and should be looked upon differently to other businesses that actually are helping the whole economy - rather than ripping it off.

Prove it. When are you guys going to put your money where your mouth is? You are the one living in la-la-land about what banks and the world should be doing. Stop focusing upon how things should be and start focusing upon how things are. I am not asking questions because I do not know. I am asking questions to you because you need to back up your statements up with evidence. How are they ripping you off? I do not consider any of their practices illegal.

Donald Trump has admitted openly that hes had donated money both to Republicans and Democrats because as he said - "I dont want them getting in the way of my business interests.

That does not matter. Even though you never answer questions, I will ask anyway. Why does it matter if he donated to both parties?

Classify what you mean by stealing! Name the billionaires who borrowed money! Explain how their actions could legally be classified as stealing. Cite you sources! Do you have any veritable sources besides Wikipedia and the BBC?

 

[Atilla]

That is basically an admission of guilt and fault right there. Since you have not been paying attention. I will tell you. I have not stated anything that required substantiation. I have been remarking upon what you guys have said already. Pointing out your fallacious arguments is a form of substantiation. Try using logic sometime.

You said pension due to me was free money and not my money? :idea:
Please substantiate providing evidence, proof and examples so we can see your logical arguments on how you reached this opinion. I'd be interested to know what happens to my contributions and how they get converted to free money.


Can't wait. Priceless entertainment...

 

[hhiusa]

You said pension due to me was free money and not my money? :idea:
Please substantiate providing evidence, proof and examples so we can see your logical arguments on how you reached this opinion. I'd be interested to know what happens to my contributions and how they get converted to free money.


Can't wait. Priceless entertainment...

A simple logical argument will suffice. Did you put all of the money that you will be receiving from your pension into your pension in the first? If not, then that is essentially free money. If you are a public servant, then the government is promising you that money when you retire. The government classifies the money as an unfunded liability and is not regarded as debt as far as accounting is concerned; thus, that money does not yet exist. The government is not including it in either accounts receivable nor accounts payable. The government is banking upon the fact that they will have this money in the future. Did you notice the key word future. Things in the future do not yet exist. That means that they have promised to pay you with money that they cannot yet afford to pay out. Hence the promise.

If you work for a company, the company may give you an option to put into a pension, which in the US would be something like a 401(k) or IRA. The company then put up even more money to contribute to your pension fund based upon how much you are willing to contribute. When the company you work for, contributes money to your pension, that is free money. Someone or something (a company) gave you money aside from the money you make by working for them. If you make $8/hour and work 40 hours/week, then that equates to $320/week before taxes. If a company gives you anything beyond that for a pension, then that is free money and totally at their discretion.

Unfunded Liability
The amount, at any given time, by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of funds available to pay them. For example, a pension plan's payment obligations, including all income, death and termination benefits owed, are compared to the plan's present investment experience, and if the total plan obligations exceed the projected plan assets at any point in time, the plan has an unfunded liability.

Public Pension Liabilities in California
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1157
Public Policy Institute of California
Get information from the horse's mouth. Information on pensions in California can be had from California. What is happening in California is no different than what is happening in the UK.

 

[Forexmospherian]

I have already given this link before in one comment that you said you were disregarding

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/ho...ed-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan-7380462

Then we have this link - your fav - the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35251357

More on blackmail - or as Donald says - "leverage" by the Economist mag

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/politics-and-deal-making

Here's another amusing one yet again involving "leverage" threats ;-)

http://www.europeanknightsproject.c...s-out-the-pedophile-jew-blackmail-connection/

Donald and staking woman - Sunday times and Selina Scott - stalked from 1995

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1593660.ece

I could fill a book - but that still would not be good enough for "debater" hhiusa -

Don't you think a US President should have Integrity ??

It's not correct to say Hitler came to power in Germany through the democratic vote as that was not really the case as he only got approx 18 % of the vote

Could Trump be the first US President to get to power by blackmailing everyone else ??

Nothing would surprise me in la-la land lol - would it you hhiusa ??

 

[Atilla]

A simple logical argument will suffice. Did you put all of the money that you will be receiving from your pension into your pension in the first? If not, then that is essentially free money.

You need to explain what you mean by FREE MONEY? What do you base this on? You make a statement without explaining your assumption or qualifying what is and what is not free money?

How does time play out in all this free money business?

If you are a public servant,

I am not a public servant.

then the government is promising you that money when you retire. The government classifies the money as an unfunded liability and is not regarded as debt as far as accounting is concerned; thus, that money does not yet exist. The government is not including it in either accounts receivable nor accounts payable. The government is banking upon the fact that they will have this money in the future. Did you notice the key word future. Things in the future do not yet exist. That means that they have promised to pay you with money that they cannot yet afford to pay out. Hence the promise.



If you work for a company, the company may give you an option to put into a pension, which in the US would be something like a 401(k) or IRA. The company then put up even more money to contribute to your pension fund based upon how much you are willing to contribute. When the company you work for, contributes money to your pension, that is free money.

No it isn't. It's company money and forms part of negotiations and contract of employment and benefits working for 'the' company. Once again you brandishing this free money with no qualifications or assumptions as to what you mean by free money.

Someone or something (a company) gave you money aside from the money you make by working for them.

Not at all. It forms part of the contract of employment.

If you make $8/hour and work 40 hours/week, then that equates to $320/week before taxes. If a company gives you anything beyond that for a pension, then that is free money and totally at their discretion.

No it is not at their discretion! It is part of the employment contract and written so.

Unfunded Liability
The amount, at any given time, by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of funds available to pay them. For example, a pension plan's payment obligations, including all income, death and termination benefits owed, are compared to the plan's present investment experience, and if the total plan obligations exceed the projected plan assets at any point in time, the plan has an unfunded liability.

Public Pension Liabilities in California
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1157
Public Policy Institute of California
Get information from the horse's mouth. Information on pensions in California can be had from California. What is happening in California is no different than what is happening in the UK.

Please explain.

Free money here there and everywhere? You are very funny.

Why would any company pay out free money if not earnt?

Is it free money for them too?

When does real money become free?

Is it possible for free money to become real?

Please explain your statements and allegation with some real life examples


Many thanks,

 

[hhiusa]

Please explain.

Free money here there and everywhere? You are very funny.

Why would any company pay out free money if not earnt?

Is it free money for them too?

When does real money become free?

Is it possible for free money to become real?

Please explain your statements and allegation with some real life examples


Many thanks,

You have never earned that money. That argument is so pathetic. If I promise to give you $100, you have not earned that money. Even if there is a contract to that effect concerning your pension, it is not earned, it was given. Giving something away is not the same as earning it. Of course you socialists believe you deserve and have earned everything that the government hands out for free.

Since when do companies give you a contract stating that they will pay a certain amount of money in addition to your current salary? Companies give pensions as incentives, they are not required to give pensions by law. Pensions are a privilege. Since you are not entitled to a pension unless one is offered, then you are being given free money. You have not worked to earn that money. Most teachers have to work for 30 years before they start to receive their pensions. If you are only 15 years into that 30, you certainly have not that pension either. If you were to bet your pension at that point and something were to happen that caused you to have to stop working, you would forfeit your pension. How are you going to pay the person you bet your pension to, with your now non-existent pension. You bet with money you did not have or earn.

Additionally, you seem to have failed to comprehend the idea of unfunded liabilities.

You are a equivocating. Free money could be a funded liability or an unfunded liability. If you loan someone money that you physically had custody of, and are now not in custody of those funds, that is a funded liability. They will be paying you back with money that already existed. It was part of the current money supply. See money supply in macroeconomic theory.

If someone promises to pay you money with money, but they currently do not have to funds to pay for it, if the funds were to become due and payable this instant, then it is an unfunded liability.

Pensions funds that are liquid and capable of being paid out regardless of the time of maturity are still considered free money. You did not create that money yourself. Either the company or the government did. That being said, the free money is still real money. In the case of the unfunded liabilities, that free money is not real until the government or company makes enough money to be able to pay said unfunded liabilities at which point they will be funded liabilities and also become real, i.e. part of the physical money supply.

 

[Atilla]

You have never earned that money. That argument is so pathetic. If I promise to give you $100, you have not earned that money. Even if there is a contract to that effect concerning your pension, it is not earned, it was given. Giving something away is not the same as earning it. Of course you socialists believe you deserve and have earned everything that the government hands out for free.

So what happens to my contributions which I did earn?

You are only giving me $100 because I gave you my $1000 first right? Even then this is like years later.

Would you give that money to someone who has not worked for you?

Since when do companies give you a contract stating that they will pay a certain amount of money in addition to your current salary?

This happens all the time. I get paid a bonus as well as a retention bonus providing I complete my contractual minimum period.

Companies give pensions as incentives, they are not required to give pensions by law. Pensions are a privilege. Since you are not entitled to a pension unless one is offered, then you are being given free money. You have not worked to earn that money. Most teachers have to work for 30 years before they start to receive their pensions. If you are only 15 years into that 30, you certainly have not that pension either. If you were to bet your pension at that point and something were to happen that caused you to have to stop working, you would forfeit your pension. How are you going to pay the person you bet your pension to, with your now non-existent pension. You bet with money you did not have or earn.

Additionally, you seem to have failed to comprehend the idea of unfunded liabilities.

Every balance sheet has an asset and a liability side. Can you explain what's on the asset side please?

You are a equivocating. Free money could be a funded liability or an unfunded liability. If you loan someone money that you physically had custody of, and are now not in custody of those funds, that is a funded liability. They will be paying you back with money that already existed. It was part of the current money supply. See money supply in macroeconomic theory.

If someone promises to pay you money with money, but they currently do not have to funds to pay for it, if the funds were to become due and payable this instant, then it is an unfunded liability.

Pensions funds that are liquid and capable of being paid out regardless of the time of maturity are still considered free money. You did not create that money yourself. Either the company or the government did. That being said, the free money is still real money. In the case of the unfunded liabilities, that free money is not real until the government or company makes enough money to be able to pay said unfunded liabilities at which point they will be funded liabilities and also become real, i.e. part of the physical money supply.

To use logic, air is free and I can inhale as much of it as I like. Similarly, if you call it free money - can I request more of this money, as much as I like than what is offered?

If it is free, I would like to have more than I need or can use because it's free. I'm thinking of wall papering my house with free money as it's likely to be cheaper than buying real wall paper.


I think I'm beginning to understand now much obliged for your kind explanations. It may take me another couple of days to get to grips with unfunded liability but I've just bought a book off Amazon and will swat up on it very soon.

 

[hhiusa]

To use logic, air is free and I can inhale as much of it as I like. Similarly, if you call it free money - can I request more of this money, as much as I like than what is offered?

Hell will freeze over when you actually learn to use logic.

You can, but it does not mean that it will be given. Additionally, teamsters for unions do this all the time. They continually try to renegotiate their pensions to get more. In the corporate world, this happens all the time.

There was an article on Bloomberg about why men are paid more than women. Men have the good ol' boys club of other executives so they can negotiate a better deal than women. However, responsible firms do not promise a fixed amount per annum to their employees. They usually have forced investment retirement whereby they do not actually give you "extra free non-existent money". Starbucks maintains a retirement portfolio for you whereby you have the option to put a certain percentage of your paycheck into the their stock at a discounted rate. The money you make in excess of the money you put into the fund with your own money is still free money; however, it will be money that you actually earned. It will not just be money that was just given to you for being a feckless worker bee. This is much more responsible and is completely different than golden parachute retirement plans.

If it is free, I would like to have more than I need or can use because it's free. I'm thinking of wall papering my house with free money as it's likely to be cheaper than buying real wall paper.

This is equivocation and a slippery slope fallacy. You have failed to understand the concept of equivocation as you do it regularly.

You are equivocating the word free on purpose. This only makes you look even more childish.

Ex. 1
All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.

1. A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid, so it's unsound.
2. A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but the premiss is false, thus the argument is again unsound.

 

[trendie]

......

....

Oi! Quieten down over there.
Some of us are trying to get some sleep.

Stating something more loudly or in a bigger font doesnt make a statement more true, nor does it make a false statement true, or vice-versa.
It either is, or isnt.

 

[hhiusa]

Oi! Quieten down over there.
Some of us are trying to get some sleep.

Stating something more loudly or in a bigger font doesnt make a statement more true, nor does it make a false statement true, or vice-versa.
It either is, or isnt.

That is all that you could come up with. Shocking!

 

[hhiusa]

Oi! Quieten down over there.
Some of us are trying to get some sleep.

Stating something more loudly or in a bigger font doesnt make a statement more true, nor does it make a false statement true, or vice-versa.
It either is, or isnt.

Ignorantio elenchi (Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion). It was never stated nor implied that typing in a bigger font makes a statement more true.

A and B are debating about the law.

A: Does the law allow me to do that?​

B: The law should allow you to do that because this and that.​

B missed the point. The question was not if the law should allow, but if it does or not.

 

[itspossible]

This guy would get my vote-his catch phrase could be vegetable rights and peace.

 

[hhiusa]

@itspossible
That person has a really really f@t f@ce. I thought people in the UK were skinny.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question - This is done the most often here by A, P & F
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - F just recently did this by asking me questions without first answering any.
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

 

[itspossible]

@itspossible
That person has a really really f@t f@ce. I thought people in the UK were skinny.

They are all skinny bro-That dude is a YANK

 

[hhiusa]

They are all skinny bro-That dude is a YANK

Nope. I know based upon how the picture looks it was taken by, that it was a selfie of you. Nice selfie. Don't strangle yourself. That looks dangerous. Atilla also posted a similar picture of an Asian dude who was pretty heavy and the English countryside was in the background. I bet that heavy Asian dude was him.

1. It is grainy and taken indoors with a cell phone or computer. You uploaded your selfie to imgur.
2. If you use google image search, the image would come up.

 

[itspossible]

Well sussed bro-its me-me for president-you would vote ya-I COULD HAVE YOUR LIL GREEN FRIEND AS MY SIDEKICKHes broke now-no stoploss

 

[Atilla]

@itspossible
That person has a really really f@t f@ce. I thought people in the UK were skinny.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question - This is done the most often here by A, P & F
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - F just recently did this by asking me questions without first answering any.
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

I'd be very interested to know, kind sir, if you can tell us what you think of litmus paper tests based on your appreciation and comprehension of sound logic.

Assuming you have a positive view, have you ever conducted a litmus test on your urine and what result did you get?


Thanking you kindly in advance for your super dooper perspective on all things.