Uh-oh!!! California is begging Trump for help.
Comments
-
You haven’t read them2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them. -
The cities of San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo (with San Diego not far behind) have all gone bankrupt and cited the costs of funding CALPERS as the #1 culprit. But these idiots Hondo and cirrhosis like to ignore the facts.2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them.
Like I said, its like arguing with 3 year olds. -
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Keep going with this though. It’s good for your brandBendintheriver said:
The cities of San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo (with San Diego not far behind) have all gone bankrupt and cited the costs of funding CALPERS as the #1 culprit. But these idiots Hondo and cirrhosis like to ignore the facts.2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them.
Like I said, its like arguing with 3 year olds. -
MikeDamone said:
You haven’t read them2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them.
I only linked to the audited financials and pointed to the page where they list their investment by risk level. Did you not read the thread?MikeDamone said:
You haven’t read them2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them. -
I’m working 60 hour weeks. Can you link again?2001400ex said:MikeDamone said:
You haven’t read them2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them.
I only linked to the audited financials and pointed to the page where they list their investment by risk level. Did you not read the thread?MikeDamone said:
You haven’t read them2001400ex said:
Don't believe me. Read the actual audited financial statements. Audited by KPMG.USMChawk said:
They’ve gone into the red using a 7% investment return assumption. From this article https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/13/borenstein-calpers-piling-more-pension-debt-on-california-taxpayers/2001400ex said:
GASB standards and the historical return on the plan make me think the 3% rate is wrong. There's very technical calculations required by the accounting standards, that are prepared by knowledge people at the TPA and audited by CPAs. What you read was a link that was in a link provided by Mike that I'm mocking. Cause his news source, and what you quote, are shit.GreenRiverGatorz said:2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities.
That's from your own link about the market basis. So if the experts agree that a 3% rate is appropriate for the pension's investments, on what basis do you disagree with them? I would wager that they know more about their investment holdings and expected returns than you do.
As for the 7 percent investment assumption, many like to cherry-pick the pension system’s past years of strong performance returns to justify the forecast.
But, Yu Ben Meng, CalPERS newly appointed chief investment officer, told his board last month that over the past 10 years and past 20 years, the system had fallen short of the 7 percent mark. Moreover, he said, market conditions make hitting that target in the future even more challenging.
Reaching that target requires making riskier investments, with greater upside potential and, of course, greater downside peril. It’s risk that an already underfunded pension system cannot afford to take.
And that ‘link within a link’ that you mock is a pension tracker run by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. I’m sure you’re much smarter and more informed than them. -
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf -
What's that sucking sound?2001400ex said:
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf -
The sound of you slobbering on every conservatives balls.TurdBomber said:
What's that sucking sound?2001400ex said:
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf -
My internet is spotty today2001400ex said:
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf -
That's cool.MikeDamone said:
My internet is spotty today2001400ex said:
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf -
Try Grammarly, grillmaster.2001400ex said:
The sound of you slobbering on every conservatives balls.TurdBomber said:
What's that sucking sound?2001400ex said:
Here you go Mike.2001400ex said:
Go to page 60. You are wrong when it comes to their investments.USMChawk said:
Is it only a one year plan? You’re basing your objection to a 3% discount rate because of a 10% return in one year. Do you believe there are no negative years? Do you not think there are constraints to the investment types a pension plan can participate in? I bet all the high risk, high reward stocks are forbidden and, conversely, I bet there’s a minimum amount of low risk, low yield bonds that are mandated. Al of this will lower the rate of return below any index rate of return.2001400ex said:
Is Calpers only a 10 year plan now? Do you really think they only invest in US stock market equities? The financial statements are online, you can see everything and they're assumptions.Bendintheriver said:
This is like arguing with a 3 year old.2001400ex said:
They got over 10% return on their investments last year. You really think 3% over time is reasonable? Besides, GASB standards dictate the rate to be used.Bendintheriver said:
You are a classic liberal idiot who has trouble with their maff and their honesty. CalPERS uses the Market Basis math because it is much more accurate over time. In other words, the accountants for the state aren't going to lie to themselves like idiots like you do.2001400ex said:
The $1 trillion is a lie. That's using a 3% rate rather than a better rate on their investments.MikeDamone said:
Did you get ahold of the OC register to bust their balls?CirrhosisDawg said:
Rent seeking off the “California is essentially bankrupt” crowd is the favorite part of my work.Bendintheriver said:So Cirrho never addressed the poverty issue in CA and played the "I don't see them in my neighborhood so it doesn't exist" ignorance is bliss defense. Gets racist in his descriptions of other states and clearly has no idea that his state has more liabilities than it will ever be able to cover.
I think Cirrho won the argument. Who is with me? LOL
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/amp/
https://www.pensiontracker.org/
I love when you post a link and don't take the time to read it you idiot.
From your link:
"The use of this discount rate here is intended, as most financial economists agree, to more closely represent market realities and system liabilities."
They are describing their use of Market Basis accounting. FFS you are a juvenile.
You don't look for facts, you look for affirmation.
They had huge losses in the early 2000's and again gigantic losses 2008-2010. Over that decade the average return was lower than 2%. The reality is probably even worse as politicians in CA like to fake the numbers. It is bad for re-election chances if you publicize horrible losses in the CALPERS returns so the democrat leaders there lie by using fake liberal maff.
The cold hard facts are that the CALPERS system is unsustainable and is bankrupt. A ponzy scheme at this point. Even after all of this stock market rise, they CALPERS system is still so deep in unsecured debt it will never get out whole. So, you idiot, that means that when the market goes down, and it will, it always does, it is going to further kill the ponzy scheme that now is CALPERS.
If you are only getting 3% return on your investments over time, good luck in retirement. You are barely keeping pace with inflation.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/cafr-2018.pdf
You should’ve gone to school. -
Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves. -
Let’s recount BendintheriverFS idiocy in this thread and prior ones. All the while he purports to defend “facts” and “education.” Here is a summary of his claims:Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
1. California is essentially bankrupt.
2. Cal PERS is a “ponzy” scheme.
3. San Bernardino, Vallejo and Stockton went bankrupt because of PERS.
4. San Diego is “right behind” these cities on the way to bankruptcy.
5. Meanwhile, he never read the audit, or the disclosure report while posting zerohedge. Dan Walters, OC register among other opinion articles as his “facts” while insisting his bullshit is something else other than “feelings.”
He cannot explain how any of his tangentially-related at best “facts” has any basis in reality or correlation to each other. He can’t because it’s the fabrication of an imbecile.
I look forward to discussing this for as long as it takes bendintheriverFS to explain this bullshit, but let’s start with a simple question.
Stockton, Vallejo and San Bernardino are Charter cities. Wtf do the payments they make to their pension fund manager have to do with any of your arguments?
-
Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves. -
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves. -
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves. -
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves. -
Tell me to read links when you’ve skipped too many to count over the years so you can remain ignorant. Only in hondos fucked up world does this make sense.2001400ex said:
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
I’d read the links but I have bad internet service and am working 60 hour weeks.
Dick face. -
So ignorant it is.MikeDamone said:
Tell me to read links when you’ve skipped too many to count over the years so you can remain ignorant. Only in hondos fucked up world does this make sense.2001400ex said:
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
I’d read the links but I have bad internet service and am working 60 hour weeks.
Dick face. -
So too stupid to get my point it is.2001400ex said:
So ignorant it is.MikeDamone said:
Tell me to read links when you’ve skipped too many to count over the years so you can remain ignorant. Only in hondos fucked up world does this make sense.2001400ex said:
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
I’d read the links but I have bad internet service and am working 60 hour weeks.
Dick face. -
You have no point Mike.MikeDamone said:
So too stupid to get my point it is.2001400ex said:
So ignorant it is.MikeDamone said:
Tell me to read links when you’ve skipped too many to count over the years so you can remain ignorant. Only in hondos fucked up world does this make sense.2001400ex said:
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
I’d read the links but I have bad internet service and am working 60 hour weeks.
Dick face. -
So you don’t get the point. Got it.2001400ex said:
You have no point Mike.MikeDamone said:
So too stupid to get my point it is.2001400ex said:
So ignorant it is.MikeDamone said:
Tell me to read links when you’ve skipped too many to count over the years so you can remain ignorant. Only in hondos fucked up world does this make sense.2001400ex said:
Read the actual audited financials. Then read those links he posted. And tell me who is arguing from Ignorance.MikeDamone said:
As usual. It’s important that you continue to argue from ignorance.2001400ex said:
I only read the headline.MikeDamone said:Q
Hondo won’t read the links.Bendintheriver said:Well, for anyone who is concerned about CA going bankrupt and has interest in reality and facts, read the attached.
For all you FEELINGS based idiot liberals who like to lie and ignore reality, don't waste your time. Clearly your ignorance and TDS is bliss to you.
https://www.aier.org/article/california-cities-bankruptcy-or-pension-cuts
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/former-calpers-board-members-shocking-admission-calpers-near-insolvency-it-needs
http://www.mygovcost.org/2018/02/26/calpers-to-force-choice-between-bankruptcy-and-bureaucrats/
https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/california-supreme-court-cuts-pension-air-time-but-preserves-california-rule/
And many many more articles for anyone who cares to educate themselves.
I’d read the links but I have bad internet service and am working 60 hour weeks.
Dick face. -
FFS you people lose and then start acting like children.
-
"You people"? Watch it now.Bendintheriver said:FFS you people lose and then start acting like children.
-
Look at this lying moron dishonestly avoid answering questions.Bendintheriver said:FFS you people lose and then start acting like children.
-
I am not playing your games. I provided articles that proved my position that were researched and published. If you don't want to read them then just fuck off.
-
You are exposed as as lying fool and coward, who dishonestly demands that your questions be answered but cannot reciprocate.Bendintheriver said:I am not playing your games. I provided articles that proved my position that were researched and published. If you don't want to read them then just fuck off.
-
The irony of Mr. Pathological Triple-Questioner bitching about answering someone else’s questions is fucking hilarious.CirrhosisDawg said:
You are exposed as as lying fool and coward, who dishonestly demands that your questions be answered but cannot reciprocate.Bendintheriver said:I am not playing your games. I provided articles that proved my position that were researched and published. If you don't want to read them then just fuck off.
-
This is what a liberal temper tantrum looks like when they can't compete intellectually. They call people names and lash out while trying to obfuscate and avoid the facts.TurdBomber said:
The irony of Mr. Pathological Triple-Questioner bitching about answering someone else’s questions is fucking hilarious.CirrhosisDawg said:
You are exposed as as lying fool and coward, who dishonestly demands that your questions be answered but cannot reciprocate.Bendintheriver said:I am not playing your games. I provided articles that proved my position that were researched and published. If you don't want to read them then just fuck off.
The proof is in all the articles I linked. He clearly has a comprehension problem and probably a small dick which explains the internet tough guy routine, but that is no ones business. -
Nah. Just another dime a dozen Butthurt HRC voter who bragged about how she was gonna destroy Trump in the 2016 Election.Bendintheriver said:
This is what a liberal temper tantrum looks like when they can't compete intellectually. They call people names and lash out while trying to obfuscate and avoid the facts.TurdBomber said:
The irony of Mr. Pathological Triple-Questioner bitching about answering someone else’s questions is fucking hilarious.CirrhosisDawg said:
You are exposed as as lying fool and coward, who dishonestly demands that your questions be answered but cannot reciprocate.Bendintheriver said:I am not playing your games. I provided articles that proved my position that were researched and published. If you don't want to read them then just fuck off.
The proof is in all the articles I linked. He clearly has a comprehension problem and probably a small dick which explains the internet tough guy routine, but that is no ones business.
CDs been throwing shade ever since. It’s all he’s got.
