Craigie changes ID's like his under ware, once a week. Just changed yesterday to new ID, so he will 'try' to be half way civil, but won't last for long. Yahoo seems clueless to the ID changing game. Block one, 5 minutes later back with a new one. Think he's had about 10 ID's so far, and still he can't control his mouth.
Nothing stopping you from posting up a NTI topic. Put one up and lets what results you get.
"rat boy's user ids"? Rather sure he's not as you can tell from his posting history. Craig's incapable of putting together a post without all of his flaming insults.
Paul, clearly you have an attraction to the likes of Craig, however you are few and far between. It's not like everyone on all of the forums he posts on, are looking for a fight, or to be called names, belittled, insulted, and yet he takes great pleasure it doing it. He agrees with no one, even when he's proven over and over to be wrong, he's 'always right' in everything!
As for the 'Mother' thing, this is the post he put up, "My mom is in the hospital and you worthless idiots just aren't important anymore.GFY"!!!!!!!
If he was looking for attention, he got it, if it was for sympathy, he came to the wrong place with that type of message. Perhaps if he was able to leave off the "worthless idiots and GFY", some might have cut him some slack.
Craig, for whatever reasons is one of the most vile, foul mouth posters I have seen. Craig has worked hard to earn no friends on any forum he visits, other than you of course. So end result, he gets back what he gives, and then complains about it.
If a few are impressed by the Craig's of the world, then they are as sick as he is.
"Social security does not need a fix right now"! No one said it did, even .gov that I posted didn't say that. The issue from the get go was SS will go broke unless changes are made in payroll taxes, retirement benefits, etc. "Trillions of dollars used for tax cut", flat out lie! They are removed from the trust fund, put into general budget spending. Bonds for same are moved into trust funds and have to be paid back. As far as name calling, you started it long ago with everyone, every post, continues on a daily basis. You don't get back nearly what you deserve.
This is a guy who is an self proclaimed expert on Karl Marx? I am not totally convinced Craigie is a 10 or 11 year old playing on mommie computer. No one can be that dense, but I guess always an exception to the rule.
DUH! Thus it needs a fix as .gov said and just what I posted until you decided you wanted to run this around in a circle of gibberish being totally clueless on the subject..
Okay, government says it's a trust fund, but our lying Craigie says it's not. I think I will go with SS.gov for my facts and discard Craigies ignorance on the subject.
Again you run off topic when your totally refuted over and over. Your just a ugly, nasty, name calling fraud.
Well someone showing their ignorance and it's not me. You can't read a thing for meaning. Just more stupidity on your part. I post up facts and your too dumb to understand them.
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
.gov Totally wrong Craigie as always.
Social Security is a stand alone program that runs from payroll taxes, pure and simple. As soon as those funds are received, a bond is issued to the trust fund in the amount government takes (all). At this time Uncle Sam owes the SS trust funds a little over 2.8 trillion dollars that has to be paid back. It has zero to do with GDP! Obviously your totally clueless on the subject.
Hello? What did that blob of mumble jumble have to do with the subject? Nothing, just more liberal gibberish. You got your dunce hat on back words.
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.