Even MORE Biden LIES!

[TomS]

https://www.atr.org/biden-caught-lying-about-gop-tax-cuts

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-09-12 10:13 p.m., TomS wrote:
> https://www.atr.org/biden-caught-lying-about-gop-tax-cuts
>

If that's a lie...

...why is Trump planning on overhauling taxes for "middle-income
households"?

'“We’ll be announcing it sometime in the next year. But it’ll be very,
very substantial tax cut for middle-income folks who work so hard. And
we’ll look forward to that. We’re going to work on it altogether,” Trump
told Republican lawmakers, without providing any additional details.'

His own words, Snowflake.

If everyone actually saw benefits from his previous tax cuts...

...why would this be necessary?

<https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/415784-most-americans-didnt-notice-benefits-of-tax-cut-says-pollster>


'Now, as Americans finish filing to the IRS for the first time under the
new system, the law has swelled the deficit and surveys show just
one-fifth of taxpayers believe their taxes have gone down. That’s made
it hard for President Donald Trump to leverage the tax cuts as an issue
in 2020, when he’s up for reelection and his party will be seeking to
retake the House of Representatives.'

<https://time.com/5570679/trump-tax-cuts/>

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

I thought you said Biden hasn't lied in FIFTY YEARS????

[Alan Baker]

Snowflake, where am I supposed to have said that?

I ask again, if Biden is lying about the GOP tax cuts, why does Trump
need to overhaul taxes on the middle class?

If they're already getting real tax relief...

...why would new "relief" be necessary?

We know the super-rich are making out great, though, right?

:-)

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

I AM NOT going to read back YOUR OWN POSTS!!!!

[Alan Baker]

I'll make it far more explicit:

You are lying when you claim I ever said that Biden hasn't lied in fifty
years.

I never said anything like that.

Now answer my question.

:-)

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Oh, go FUCK YOURSELF!

[Alan Baker]

Why are you such a little pussy, Snowflake.

Answer the question.

If the middle class tax cuts that Trump passed work as well as YOU have
claimed...

...why is he promising to overhaul them after the election?

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Trump wants to make them BETTER! Those libtard Dims want to TAKE THEM AWAY, and ADD A WHOLE SHIT-LOAD OF MORE TAXES!!! Sounds like a winning plan to me...

[Alan Baker]

Why do they need to be "better", Snowflake.

You told us they were already great.

[TomS]

MORE Biden lies:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/09/21/joe-biden-never-talked-ukraine-son-trump-needs-investigated/2401830001/

What the hell DO they talk about when they get together, Pelosi's makeup?

It is simply UNBELIEVABLE they did not discuss something of this magnitude, which has tremendous ethics issues. Obvious answer: Biden is lying AGAIN!!!!

[Alan Baker]

Address yourself to my subject, Snowflake.

If Trump's original tax cuts were so great...

...as you and he both claim...

...why does he need to "overhaul" (his word) them?

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You're deflecting - this thread is about Biden's lies. PERIOD (to paraphrase Obummer)!

[Alan Baker]

And specifically, you claimed he was lying about Trump's tax cuts...

...so I asked why, if they were so great, why does Trump need to
"overhaul" them?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

:)

VVVVV

--
President Trump made 12,019 false or misleading claims over 928 days
Pretending that doesn't bother you is a mental disorder.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Your "overhaul" is Trump's "enhancements!"

[Alan Baker]

No, Snowflake, that's not what "overhaul" means.

You "overhaul" something when it's failing in its current state.

[TomS]

Biden is a proven liar - case closed.

[Bigbird]

TomS runs away shouting over his shoulder:

> Biden is a proven liar - case closed.

What are you up to with Biden, half a dozen?

Check out my sig

You really are just a demented old fart.

VVVVVVVVV

[Alan Baker]

No.

Biden's statement was:

'Income inequality's at an all-time high, made even worse by the
God-awful tax cut that Trump has passed benefiting virtually no one but
the super wealthy.'

So if that statement isn't true...

If there have been REAL benefits to the middle-class for instance.

...why does Trump say that the system needs to be "overhauled"?

His word, Snowflake.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Did you EVEN read the article? Obviously not:

"“The God-awful tax cut that Trump has passed benefiting virtually no one but the super-wealthy.”

This is UNTRUE - lower income folks got the HIGHEST tax cut; I got a tax cut.

Go bark up a REAL TREE!

[Alan Baker]

Did you?

Let's see the actual documentation, Snowflake.

[Bigbird]

Crumbs swept away by the effects of tariffs.

Like a cash advance on your credit card (something no-one intelligent
does unless it's a dire emergency) you will be paying it back with
interest for years.

You really are just a demented old fart.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You are admitting that you DIDN'T read it.

[Alan Baker]

I'm admitting that you CLAIM you got a tax cut and that you cannot
actually show it.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> "“The God-awful tax cut that Trump has passed benefiting virtually no
> one but the super-wealthy.”
>

> This is - lower income folks got the tax cut; I got a
> tax cut.
>

So now you are implying you are among the "lower income folks".

One sentence with so many lies. What the fuck is wrong with you Flaccid?

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You ARE a Canuck, so you no NOTHING about US taxes. I, for one of many, got a tax cut, which PROVES Biden is a LIAR! But, what else is new?

[Alan Baker]

I know you CLAIM you got a tax cut...

[TomS]

Hey Bigturd,

Biden said the "wealthy" meaning the MOST WEALTHY BILLIONAIRES. I am a millionaire, NOT a billionaire. But, you are NETHER of these, so you don't understand the difference.

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiiiiight.

Tell us how you're a "millionaire", Snowflake. Please!

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Tell us what YOU'RE worth - I'll bet it is a WHOLE LOT LESS than a million!

[Alan Baker]

But I've made no claims about my wealth, Snowflake.

Go on... ...explain.

[TomS]

...which means it is UNDERWHELMING!!!

[-hh]

Alan wrote:

> TomS wrote:
>> Biden said the "wealthy" meaning the MOST WEALTHY BILLIONAIRES. I am
>> a millionaire, NOT a billionaire. But, you are NETHER of these, so
>> you don't understand the difference.
>
>
> Riiiiiiiight.
>
> Tell us how you're a "millionaire", Snowflake. Please!

Apparently, it’s due to the Market decline, because Tom used to claim
that he was a “multi-millionaire”.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

Which means nothing at all.

But you've made a claim...

...so back it up.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> You ARE a Canuck, so you no NOTHING about US taxes.

Another testament to your intelligence and mental well being.

Let's see, we have a none sequitur, anger accentuated by SHOUTING and
misspellings and casual racism.

Flaccid, you really are just a demented old fart.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:46:13 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > "“The God-awful tax cut that Trump has passed benefiting
> > > virtually no one but the super-wealthy.”
> > >
> > > This is - lower income folks got the tax cut; I got a
> > > tax cut.
> > >
> >
> > So now you are implying you are among the "lower income folks".
> >
> > One sentence with so many lies. What the fuck is wrong with you
> > Flaccid?
> >
> > You really are just a demented old fart.
> >
>

> Biden said the "wealthy" meaning the . I am
> a millionaire, a billionaire.

1. wealthy does not mean billionaire. I would say a billionaire is at
the very least 'very wealthy'.
2. You have described yourself as a "multi-millionaire" so unless you
were lying you are not among the "lower income folks"
3. Now you claim you are simply a millionaire (singular) which if you
admit you were lying previously might put you about average for an old
fart.
4. You have made many claims about your income and investments lately
which if taken at face value would put you above average income earning
so again not among the lower income folk.

Only you know the truth so it is just about which of the contradictory
claims is true and which are lies.

That some are lies is a fact.

> But, you are NETHER of these, so
> you don't understand the difference.

You know nothing about me in this regard. I have shared some of my
history but you are too self inflated and self interested to recall
anything. You don't even know my nationality or where I live no matter
my education, employment history or investments.

So what you are telling us is that you hope I am not wealthy. I will
give you this little hint. The average house price in my town is around
$700,000. Now if only you can remember what position I had before
semi-retiring and becoming self-employed you might infer what a really
stupid cunt you are being.

[-hh]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:31:57 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-10-03 7:49 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:37:31 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2019-10-03 7:36 p.m., TomS wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:34:41 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2019-10-03 7:32 p.m., TomS wrote:

> >>>>> ...

> >>>>> Biden said the "wealthy" meaning the MOST WEALTHY BILLIONAIRES. I am
> >>>>> a millionaire, NOT a billionaire. But, you are NETHER of these, so
> >>>>> you don't understand the difference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Riiiiiiiight.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell us how you're a "millionaire", Snowflake. Please!
> >>>
> >>> Hey Dolt,
> >>>
> >>> Tell us what YOU'RE worth - I'll bet it is a WHOLE LOT LESS than a million!
> >>>
> >>
> >> But I've made no claims about my wealth, Snowflake.
> >>
> >> Go on... ...explain.
> >
> > ...which means it is UNDERWHELMING!!!
> >
>
> Which means nothing at all.
>
> But you've made a claim...
>
> ...so back it up.

Since Tom has been such a penny-pincher, perhaps a barter can be arranged:

Tom proves that he's a 'multi-millionaire' and I'll provide the provider of the 8% Annuity.
Naturally, since Tom's wealth claim came first, he goes first.


~~ pulling out a bag of popcorn ~~

<http://gph.is/1gZ4Qoc>



-hh

[TomS]

LOL! More of your libtard lies - still am a multi-millionaire: what are you???

[TomS]

Hey BirdTurd,

The only thing I claim is that I am better off than YOU simply because you haven't said SHIT about your "wealth"!

Who GIVES A SHIT what your "average" house goes for? You could put the minimum down payment on a and be mortgaged to the hilt, idiot. Or, you could (more likely) be a RENTER.

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

A deal with you is like striking a bargain with the Devil. You are BLOWING SMOKE about your annuity and you KNOW IT! Just ANOTHER one of your MANY LIES!!!!

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but you've claimed you're a "millionaire"...

...and backed it up with nothing.

>
> Who GIVES A SHIT what your "average" house goes for? You could put
> the minimum down payment on a and be mortgaged to the hilt, idiot.
> Or, you could (more likely) be a RENTER.

And you could be lying about everything you've claimed about your
wealth, so...

[Bigbird]

> The only thing I claim is that I am better off than imply
> because you haven't said about your "wealth"!
>

That's very trump like putting wealth in quotes as if it means
something different to you.

So you are retracting all your other claims, admitting they are lies?

Now you wish to replace them with a singular assumption about me based
on you total lack of knowledge and your acknowledged lies about
yourself.

> Who what your "average" house goes for? You could put

> the minimum down payment on a and be mortgaged to the hilt, idiot.

> Or, you could (more likely) be a .

Well make your mind up shit for brains. You have previously assumed I
am of retirement age when no-one would have a mortgage unless they had
truly fucked up (is that what you did, are you mortgaged up to the
hilt? )and now you claim I am a new buyer.

If you weren't so unintelligent you might surmise that the average
price of houses around here is an indication that a million dollars is
not that really wealthy at all for anyone around my age no matter
yours. That was the point I was making.

I don't have a mortgage. I paid off the mortgage on my first house in
2003. I took out a 25 year flexible mortgage and paid it off in ten
years. I sold that house in 2005 and it last sold for over $600,000
earlier this year (I was curious so I just looked it up).

I don't really do pissing contests. You should refrain as I don't think
your prostate is up to it. You have proven nothing about your wealth
and as a proven habitual liar anything short of a notarised letter from
your bank isn't really doing more than a weak stream of piss in the
wind.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

>
> LOL! More of your lies - still am a multi-millionaire: what
> are you???

So why elsewhere in the thread did you revoke all of your contradictory
claims replacing them with an attempted pissing contest.

Is it that you really can't help your continually lying; it's
pathological is it?

You really are a demented old fart.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> still am a multi-millionaire:

For all the lies that you have been proven to have uttered you may as
well be claiming to be Napoleon.

I can't help but think that such a claim is in your future.

[-hh]

> LOL! More of your libtard lies ...

On the contrary: I merely repeated back the claims you've made.

If they were a lie, then you need to say so, to take responsibility for them.

Assuming that you weren't lying, the only way that all your claims can be true is if
your net worth was $2M+ prior to this past stock market dive, but then your net
worth fell below $2M during said dive to reflect your revised claim of "millionaire".
Finally, with yesterday's Market recovery, your net worth apparently nudged up,
to be just back over $2M to again allow you to claim "multi-millionaire" again.


> ... - still am a multi-millionaire: what are you???

One who knows better than to try to equate wealth with character & honesty.


-hh

[-hh]

Sorry, but I don't need to lie.

FWIW, I've already sent an offline email off to one individual on the 8% details;
perhaps they'll vouch for it.

But even if they were to do so, you'll still claim it to be a lie, so you need to produce
something to vouch for yourself, to start to make up for all of the shortfalls in honesty
and character that you've already committed.

Case in point, I've added a new file in /2019b/ that should be sufficient to debunk
a false net worth claim that you made about me.


-hh

[Bigbird]

> Case in point, I've added a new file in 2019b that should be

> sufficient to debunk a false net worth claim that you made about me.
>

I don't even understand this pissing contest. Does Flaccid know nearly
enough about you to question whether you might be eligible for such an
annuity. Have you even suggested it is a standard single premium
guaranteed life product with no refund? If not then there are so many
variables that to doubt the assertion is completely inane.

[-hh]

Bigbird wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> Case in point, I've added a new file in 2019b that should be
>> sufficient to debunk a false net worth claim that you made about me.
>
> I don't even understand this pissing contest.

Oh, it’s simple enough: Tom makes “look at me!” boasts and others
note his lack of substantiation (as well as his refusal to substantiate) so
Tommy then gets mad and lashes out...a classical “shoot the messenger”.

> Does Flaccid know nearly enough about you to question whether you
> might be eligible for such an annuity.

Probably not. I’ve mentioned very little here, but he could be trying his
hand at doxxing...but even that won’t really get him all that much.

> Have you even suggested it is a standard single premium
> guaranteed life product with no refund?

No, but Tom has raised that point himself while trying to claim that all annuities
are always rip-offs, apparently based on an article which had factual errors.

> If not then there are so many variables that to doubt the assertion
> is completely inane.

Tom’s frustrated because he’s finally realized it isn’t a bum rap deal and he’s not
been able to find it himself, while I’ve not offered it up for free on a silver platter.
With me offering it to everyone else, he’s realized he’s at risk of financially “losing”
an opportunity.

Tom’s insecurity is what drives him to want to be a “winner”, and his usual strategy
is to try to push others down.


-hh

[Bigbird]

Without more information it is impossible for anyone to say whether it
is a good deal or not. If it were a standard annuity simply knowing
your age might be enough to evaluate but otherwise, no.

If Tom is buying into it it just shows how little he knows about that
sector.

[-hh]

Bigbird wrote:
>
> Without more information it is impossible for anyone to say
> whether it is a good deal or not.

Well, there is some estimates that can be done with limited
information, such as you noted next:

> If it were a standard annuity simply knowing your age might
> be enough to evaluate but otherwise, no.

Agreed. For example, this 2018 article basically said the best market
rates were 6.1% for a male age 60, rising to 7.8% at age 70:

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2018/08/01/the-best-fixed-annuities-available-in-2018/#62259c904df1>

IIRC, Tom’s age is mid-70s and I have mentioned that I’m substantially
younger (I’m not even old enough yet to take penalty-free retirement
account withdrawals if there was a need), yet here I’m talking about an
opportunity for myself which would be at the nominal market reference
range for *his* age...which is precisely why I said this is an opportunity.

> If Tom is buying into it it just shows how little he knows
> about that sector.

He merely believes what he’s heard/read without any thought of
then doing any independent research or verification afterwords.


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Prove me wrong - if you can!

But, if you send me a cashier's check for $1,000 I will provide proof.

[TomS]

Hey BirdTurd,

LOL!!! SOMEBODY ELSE sold your old house for 600k? WTF does that matter here?? Go back to your nest and recompute!!! I gave you fucking idiots 3 simple trades that you could have make THIRTY FOUR PERCENT on (I did), and you geniuses SAT ON YOUR COLLECTIVE HANDS!!!! My guess is that is because you DON'T HAVE ANY CASH to speculate with, but who knows for sure. Mostly, you libtards are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!!!!

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

Oh, go suck an egg. I KNOW what I am, and I notice that you are SILENT about your own situation. Obviously you are NOT a multi-millionaire because you are still WORKING for a living. My sole reason for stating my wealth is that you MIGHT recognize a certain level of achievement and MIGHT accept financial advice. What I have found is not only do you REJECT said advice, but you relish finding FAULT with same, to the point that you will LIE about annuities and other particulars! If I could pinpoint what makes you libtards so impervious to common sense I could write a self-help book and make MORE MILLIONS!!!!

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

"Push others down?" You've got to be FUCKING JOKING!!!! I specifically informed you how you could have made FORTY NINE PERCENT in a few weeks - why the hell would I have done that if I wanted to "push you down?" You libtards are in a TOTAL STATE OF DENIAL!!!!!!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

I don't have to prove you wrong, Snowflake.

It's your job to support your claims.

I'm richer than Warren Buffet, so prove me wrong...

[Alan Baker]

And what is your sole reason for not supporting your claim, Snowflake?

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
>
> Hey Hidin' Hughie,

Oh, look: it’s a lame “pushing others down” attempt.

> Oh, go suck an egg. I KNOW what I am, ...

Just what is that, precisely? Someone who because they have some money it
somehow magically makes them a good, honest person? How’s that work for
lbank robbers?

> ...and I notice that you are SILENT about your own situation.

Because absence of evidence is always convincing “proof”! /s

> Obviously you are NOT a multi-millionaire because you
> are still WORKING for a living.

“Obviously”, because Warren Buffet is still working too.... /s

> My sole reason for stating my wealth is that you MIGHT recognize
> a certain level of achievement and MIGHT accept financial advice.

No, you’re merely looking for an excuse to brag about not being poor.

Thus, I recognize what *type* of achievement it is that you value.
My values simply do not align with your’s, which makes your “advice”
on how to go about mimicking you an irrelevant life path.

> What I have found is not only do you REJECT said advice, but you
> relish finding FAULT with same, to the point that you will LIE about
> annuities and other particulars!

Your personal avarice is what’s been rejected, along with your methods
as these have revealed your willingness to lie, cheat and steal.

For example, your denial attempt about the Annuity offer I have. Because of
your demonstrated non-trustworthiness, I’ve identified the specific rules that
you must follow if you want to see that information yourself. The only person
responsible for you not following those instructions is you.

All of your whining is nothing more than another confirmation of who you are:
nothing more than an insecure and selfishly shallow “me! me! me!” type who’s
determined to be miserable whenever you see others being happy.

> If I could pinpoint what makes you libtards so impervious to common sense
> I could write a self-help book and make MORE MILLIONS!!!!

You haven’t found the “wrong” you’re looking for because isn’t in others - it’s within yourself.

[merge]

> "Push others down?" You've got to be FUCKING JOKING!!!! I specifically

> informed you how you could have made FORTY NINE PERCENT ...

No, that was just an self-serving “look at ME!” ego massage attempt on your part.

That’s why you’ve gotten mad when posters doubted the validity of your claims.


-hh

[Bigbird]

> sold your old house for 600k? > WTF does that
> matter here??

Nothing matters here yet it matters to you far more than to me as you
are continually shouting about your apparently fabricated wealth. Is
that why you call it "wealth". You may learn that one day. However if
you had any intelligence whatsoever you might be able to make the odd
inference. As I said I only brought it up to illustrate your claim to
be a millionaire is nothing to shout about. Something you have
belatedly grasped as you now claim to be a multi-millionaire. A claim
that simply does not stack up (based of your trading claims yet still
low income) and is clearly invented when you realised a million was not
a lot for your total assets for the average retired senior.

Unlike you I haven't had to re-mortgage to fund a gambling habit so I
have no valuation on this house though I suspect it has increased by a
similar percentage. It's not important to me as I don't plan on moving
anytime soon.

[snip repeated false claims and lies]

Again you evade, distort and lie. A claimed multi-millionaire who has
very low income... your claims don't add up to a positive picture of
your pretence of being a successful day trader.

If you really believed anything you said mattered here perhaps you
wouldn't simply lie constantly.

Trouble is that I believe that someone who lies here lies IRL too.

Your life is a lie. Nothing you say here that is unsupported is true,
not to anyone who knows you are a pathological liar.

You really are a demented old fart.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Prove me wrong - if you can!

You are a pathological liar. There is no need to prove you wrong; it is
a given.

>
> But, if you send me a cashier's check for $1,000 I will provide proof.

If you weren't lying you wouldn't be making such a retarded request.

That in itself is proof and you cannot refute it.

You really are a demented old fart. :)

[Alan Baker]

I will! HH did send me the details and he really does have such an annuity.

>
> But even if they were to do so, you'll still claim it to be a lie, so you need to produce
> something to vouch for yourself, to start to make up for all of the shortfalls in honesty
> and character that you've already committed.
>

Yup.

> Case in point, I've added a new file in /2019b/ that should be sufficient to debunk
> a false net worth claim that you made about me.

Do you think he's bright enough to find it?

:-)

[-hh]

Not without being spoon-fed.

FWIW, I did find this in the logs:
{10/6/19, 12:41 PM 216.244.66.195}

...which is at least roughly in the right geographical region:
<https://ipinfo.io/216.244.66.195>

...but through a bit more tracking, it was just a 'bot.


-hh

[TomS]

LOL! Now you are comparing me to a BANK ROBBER!! What's next, a PEDOPHILE???

You are simply deflecting the fact that I am right - I gave you a REAL opportunity (which ALL you libtards BLEW!) for exactly NOTHING in return!!! Well, not exactly nothing: you HAVE given me a WHOLE LOT OF SHIT about it!!!!

Your annuity scam is another example of your LYING and CHEATING. You don't have an EIGHT PERCENT annuity and you know it - prove me wrong by simply stating which annuity it is. As Alan repeatedly says, it's YOUR CLAIM, BACK IT UP!!!!

[TomS]

Then post the damn thing, because it doesn't pass the smell test. Here is one list of the BEST fixed annuities, and the BEST rate of return is 4.3%:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2019/02/11/the-best-fixed-annuities-available-in-2019/#111a7c901357
and you have to deal with a sub-prime company; A or better reduces the yield to UNDER FOUR PERCENT. 8% is SO FAR removed from reality that it is either a LIE or a SCAM.

And what type of annuity is it, fixed, variable, immediate or deferred - it MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

[Alan Baker]

Actually, he really DOES have an 8% annuity available to him.

Sorry. Truth.

Actually: not sorry at all.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Sure... ...right after you give me cashier's cheque for $1000.

That was your price for confirming your claims, wasn't it?

:-)

> Here is one list of the BEST fixed annuities, and the BEST rate of
> return is 4.3%:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2019/02/11/the-best-fixed-annuities-available-in-2019/#111a7c901357
>
>
> and you have to deal with a sub-prime company; A or better reduces
> the yield to UNDER FOUR PERCENT. 8% is SO FAR removed from reality
> that it is either a LIE or a SCAM.
>
> And what type of annuity is it, fixed, variable, immediate or
> deferred - it MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Actually, it is the actual truth.

Not sorry.

:-)

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
>
> LOL! Now you are comparing me to a BANK ROBBER!! What's next, a PEDOPHILE???

Is that a confession?

> You are simply deflecting the fact that I am right - I gave you a REAL opportunity
> (which ALL you libtards BLEW!) for exactly NOTHING in return!!!

LOL, not at all: you started out quite vague and your later trades failed to meet
your own trade criteria. Plus I happened to be out enjoying myself, away from
secure internet connections, which made logging in for day-trades unwise, even
if I was willing to gamble a spin of your little roulette wheel.

> Well, not exactly nothing: you HAVE given me a WHOLE LOT OF SHIT about it!!!!

With good reason: your claims weren’t particularly clear or plausible, and your
excuses for not providing substantiation requires Fidelity to be breaking the law
in what is reportable to you.

> Your annuity scam is another example of your LYING and CHEATING. You don't
> have an EIGHT PERCENT annuity and you know it - prove me wrong by simply
> stating which annuity it is. As Alan repeatedly says, it's YOUR CLAIM, BACK IT UP!!!!

Nope, for I’ve already had it vouched for by a third party. As for you, you yourself
said it best: “But, if you send me a cashier's check for $1,000 I will provide proof.”

Hmmm...now wouldn’t my prior “Welch proof” offer of you sending the payment to
be held in escrow by a third party actually a better deal for you? Because if I don’t
deliver, you then get your money back, and with free bragging rights.

So how about it? Feeling lucky punk?


-hh

[Bigbird]

> > > Case in point, I've added a new file in 2019b that should be

> > > sufficient to debunk a false net worth claim that you made about
> > > me.
> >
> > Do you think he's bright enough to find it?
> >
> > :-)
>
> Then post the damn thing, because it doesn't pass the smell test.

> Here is one list of the fixed annuities, and the rate of

> return is 4.3%:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2019/02/11/the-best-fixed-annui
> ties-available-in-2019/#111a7c901357 and you have to deal with a
> sub-prime company; A or better reduces the yield to

> . 8% is removed from reality that it is either a or
> a .
>

I believe you made the going rate $1000 for financial information
though I am sure HH will take a lower non-welchable bet from a low
income earner like yourself. :)

> And what type of annuity is it, fixed, variable, immediate or
> deferred - it

Well yes it does, you are learning. You knew fuck all about annuities a
few days ago and now you know something. You owe HH some gratitude.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:12:08 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Hidin' Hughie,
> >
> > Oh, look: it’s a lame “pushing others down” attempt.
> >
> > > Oh, go suck an egg. I KNOW what I am, ...
> >
> > Just what is that, precisely? Someone who because they have some
> > money it somehow magically makes them a good, honest person? How’s
> > that work for lbank robbers?
> >
> > > ...and I notice that you are SILENT about your own situation.
> >
> > Because absence of evidence is always convincing “proof”! /s
> >
> > > Obviously you are NOT a multi-millionaire because you
> > > are still WORKING for a living.
> >
> > “Obviously”, because Warren Buffet is still working too.... /s
> >
> > > My sole reason for stating my wealth is that you MIGHT recognize
> > > a certain level of achievement and MIGHT accept financial advice.
> >
> > No, you’re merely looking for an excuse to brag about not being
> > poor.
> >

> > Thus, I recognize what type of achievement it is that you value.

Well you do have that look about you, lizard face.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

That isn't TRUTH, that is DEFLECTION! Hughie doesn't have it - he is just BLOWING SMOKE! Failure to reveal it is CONFIRMATION!!

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

You go from pedophile to punk - how original.

I am not responsible for you being out of touch - that is your problem.

My recommendations were anything BUT VAGUE! They were explicit in both security and time, which is on the record.

You have my conditions for providing written proof: take it or leave it...

[Alan Baker]

Then your failures to reveal are confirmation too, Snowflake...

...or hadn't you thought of that?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:50:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL! Now you are comparing me to a BANK ROBBER!! What's next, a
> > > PEDOPHILE???
> >
> > Is that a confession?

[snip]

> >
> > Nope, for I’ve already had it vouched for by a third party. As for
> > you, you yourself said it best: “But, if you send me a cashier's
> > check for $1,000 I will provide proof.”
> >
> > Hmmm...now wouldn’t my prior “Welch proof” offer of you sending the
> > payment to be held in escrow by a third party actually a better
> > deal for you? Because if I don’t deliver, you then get your money
> > back, and with free bragging rights.
> >
> > So how about it? Feeling lucky punk?
> >
>

> You go from pedophile to punk - how original.

Well it is to me, to you clearly not so much; you get those a lot I
take it.

> You have my conditions for providing written proof: take it or leave
> it...

Some fuckwit just wrote this:

"Failure to reveal it is CONFIRMATION!!"

Mean anything to you?

[-hh]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:32:41 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:50:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL! Now you are comparing me to a BANK ROBBER!! What's next, a PEDOPHILE???
> >
> > Is that a confession?
> >
> > > You are simply deflecting the fact that I am right - I gave you a REAL opportunity
> > > (which ALL you libtards BLEW!) for exactly NOTHING in return!!!
> >
> > LOL, not at all: you started out quite vague and your later trades failed to meet
> > your own trade criteria. Plus I happened to be out enjoying myself, away from
> > secure internet connections, which made logging in for day-trades unwise, even
> > if I was willing to gamble a spin of your little roulette wheel.
> >
> > > Well, not exactly nothing: you HAVE given me a WHOLE LOT OF SHIT about it!!!!
> >
> > With good reason: your claims weren’t particularly clear or plausible, and your
> > excuses for not providing substantiation requires Fidelity to be breaking the law
> > in what is reportable to you.
> >
> > > Your annuity scam is another example of your LYING and CHEATING. You don't
> > > have an EIGHT PERCENT annuity and you know it - prove me wrong by simply
> > > stating which annuity it is. As Alan repeatedly says, it's YOUR CLAIM, BACK IT UP!!!!
> >
> > Nope, for I’ve already had it vouched for by a third party. As for you, you yourself
> > said it best: “But, if you send me a cashier's check for $1,000 I will provide proof.”
> >
> > Hmmm...now wouldn’t my prior “Welch proof” offer of you sending the payment to
> > be held in escrow by a third party actually a better deal for you? Because if I don’t
> > deliver, you then get your money back, and with free bragging rights.
> >
> > So how about it? Feeling lucky punk?

Clearly not!

>
> My recommendations were anything BUT VAGUE! They were explicit in
> both security and time, which is on the record.

The record shows otherwise. Here's the first example of one of these so-called
"explicit" buy/sell recommendations:

"Hiding Hughie, you are SO FUCKED UP! I bought TQQQ and held it for a DAY
AND A HALF for a ELEVEN PERCENT GAIN!"

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/4T8lYrpc5mk/WRoidM9HAAAJ>

Yes, that's the sell, but it is also the first time that Tom's mentioned TQQQ, which
means his claim of being "explicit on both security and time" is totally missing its
buy recommendation. Conclusion: a complete failure by Tom.

Next, ALXN. There was a buy recommendation which was done okay, but there
wasn't any sell criteria volunteered: Tom was pushed to state what his exit criteria
was, which he finally said was a +10% gain, but he ended up losing his nerve and
sold before reaching said criteria. Conclusion: with the +10% sell criteria not
voluntarily included ... and then not met either, can't be considered a success.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/8S_rMeksEQAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/sMpOVqNWAAAJ>

Finally, there was CVX, which Tom refused to note any exit criteria was, and
once again, he ended up bailing. If Tom made any gain at all, it was less than 0.2%.
Conclusion: another failure by Tom to provide so-called explicit directions, as well as
a second financial "whoops!" where his prognosis for what profit had failed him:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/9A3D2vUgI7s/NnOwnhqjAQAJ>

Granted, its only n=3, but the pattern has been that the more explicit Tom has been
with his disclosures, the less financially successful his trades have become.

> You have my conditions for providing written proof: take it or leave it...

"...BLOWING SMOKE! Failure to reveal it is CONFIRMATION!!"

As Alan noted, its really too bad that you didn't think your own actions through.



-hh

[TomS]

You just don't listen: I DON'T BET with a liars and/or cheats, and you are BOTH!

>
> >
> > My recommendations were anything BUT VAGUE! They were explicit in
> > both security and time, which is on the record.
>
> The record shows otherwise. Here's the first example of one of these so-called
> "explicit" buy/sell recommendations:
>
> "Hiding Hughie, you are SO FUCKED UP! I bought TQQQ and held it for a DAY
> AND A HALF for a ELEVEN PERCENT GAIN!"
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/4T8lYrpc5mk/WRoidM9HAAAJ>

LOL! I told you on Aug 15 to BUY, but you were TOO DUMB to figure out WHAT to buy! Anybody with a 1/2 ounce of sense would have bought the S&P 500.

>
> Yes, that's the sell, but it is also the first time that Tom's mentioned TQQQ, which
> means his claim of being "explicit on both security and time" is totally missing its
> buy recommendation. Conclusion: a complete failure by Tom.

No - you SHOULD have asked me WHAT I bought - that is YOUR FAILURE!

Your response was "If I want to gamble I will go to Las Vegas"

>
> Next, ALXN. There was a buy recommendation which was done okay, but there
> wasn't any sell criteria volunteered: Tom was pushed to state what his exit criteria
> was, which he finally said was a +10% gain, but he ended up losing his nerve and
> sold before reaching said criteria. Conclusion: with the +10% sell criteria not
> voluntarily included ... and then not met either, can't be considered a success.

Again, you are acting like a CHILD - you SHOULD have bought the day after I did and could have made a FIFTEEN PERCENT GAIN!

>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/8S_rMeksEQAJ>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/sMpOVqNWAAAJ>
>
> Finally, there was CVX, which Tom refused to note any exit criteria was, and
> once again, he ended up bailing. If Tom made any gain at all, it was less than 0.2%.
> Conclusion: another failure by Tom to provide so-called explicit directions, as well as
> a second financial "whoops!" where his prognosis for what profit had failed him:
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/9A3D2vUgI7s/NnOwnhqjAQAJ>

News Flash: if you want a guaranteed return buy your FICTITIOUS 8% annuity (really more like 4%, making PONAX a MUCH BETTER option). They call it a "risk investment" for a reason. CVX was based on very bad "expert opinion" about the loss of Saudi oil production that was totally out of my control.

In general, you libtards are pretty RETARDED when it comes to investing. All of you should turn your portfolio (whatever small amount that might be) over to a CFP and stay the hell out of doing it yourselves. Or you could just buy and forget SPY...

[Alan Baker]

It isn't fictitious, Snowflake.

Not sorry.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

As long as you turds don't identify it, YES IT IS!

[Alan Baker]

So all the things you won't support are fictitious as well, right,
Snowflake?

[-hh]

Unfortunately, you've not ever substantiated either your claim that I'm a liar,
nor your claim that I'm a cheat.

Realistically, its simply that you do not want to lose, and you know that you'll lose this offer.

> > > My recommendations were anything BUT VAGUE! They were explicit in
> > > both security and time, which is on the record.
> >
> > The record shows otherwise. Here's the first example of one of these so-called
> > "explicit" buy/sell recommendations:
> >
> > "Hiding Hughie, you are SO FUCKED UP! I bought TQQQ and held it for a DAY
> > AND A HALF for a ELEVEN PERCENT GAIN!"
> >
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/4T8lYrpc5mk/WRoidM9HAAAJ>
>
> LOL! I told you on Aug 15 to BUY, but you were TOO DUMB to figure out WHAT to buy!
> Anybody with a 1/2 ounce of sense would have bought the S&P 500.

Incorrect, because you failed to meet your own standard of being an explicit recommendation:

"> ...which makes it a good time to buy.
...which I did today. YES!"

> > Yes, that's the sell, but it is also the first time that Tom's mentioned TQQQ, which
> > means his claim of being "explicit on both security and time" is totally missing its
> > buy recommendation. Conclusion: a complete failure by Tom.
>
> No - you SHOULD have asked me WHAT I bought - that is YOUR FAILURE!

Irrelevant, since it was five (5) days until you came back with any comment to being
questioned on your vague 'buy' statement, by which time you had sold and it was
too late & irrelevant.

> Your response was "If I want to gamble I will go to Las Vegas"

Which was quite prescient with your subsequent CVX experience, wasn't it?

> > Next, ALXN. There was a buy recommendation which was done okay, but there
> > wasn't any sell criteria volunteered: Tom was pushed to state what his exit criteria
> > was, which he finally said was a +10% gain, but he ended up losing his nerve and
> > sold before reaching said criteria. Conclusion: with the +10% sell criteria not
> > voluntarily included ... and then not met either, can't be considered a success.
>
> Again, you are acting like a CHILD - you SHOULD have bought the day after I did
> and could have made a FIFTEEN PERCENT GAIN!

Except that I did ask questions on its risk because of its fundamentals and history,
which you waived off as supposedly not possible or relevant ... and yet after it had
a short-lived rebound (where you almost got out at the +10% you said was your goal),
its value been steadily sliding to where it closed today at 95.8, which is nearly 5% lower
than your original 'buy' price of 100.2. This illustrates that your pick was YA gamble.

> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/8S_rMeksEQAJ>
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/yhHlqMZnqVs/sMpOVqNWAAAJ>
> >
> > Finally, there was CVX, which Tom refused to note any exit criteria was, and
> > once again, he ended up bailing. If Tom made any gain at all, it was less than 0.2%.
> > Conclusion: another failure by Tom to provide so-called explicit directions, as well as
> > a second financial "whoops!" where his prognosis for what profit had failed him:
> >
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/9A3D2vUgI7s/NnOwnhqjAQAJ>
>
> News Flash: if you want a guaranteed return buy your FICTITIOUS 8% annuity
> (really more like 4%, making PONAX a MUCH BETTER option).

Oh, its a fiction to you because you've not found the opportunity.

But that doesn't make it a fiction. It really sucks to be treated the same way that
you try to treat others, doesn't it? The welch-proof offer is still open if you're
feeling lucky.

> They call it a "risk investment" for a reason.

They also say its a "spin of the roulette wheel" as you've been demonstrating.

> CVX was based on very bad "expert opinion" about the loss of Saudi oil production
> that was totally out of my control.

Blah, blah, blah ... lame excuse making for why your research sucked and your gamble didn't pay off.


-hh

[TomS]

As I said, hire a CFP - you are TOO DUMB to guide your own investments, including that FICTITIOUS annuity!!!!

[Alan Baker]

It isn't fictitious.

Give me a cashier's cheque for $1000, and I'll provide the proof.

Awww... ...what you demand isn't good enough for you, snowflake?

Not sorry.

:-)

[TomS]

Yup, it's FICTITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

Nope. But if you claim that lack of support means that it must be so...

...then all your claims are fictitious..

...aren't they?

:-)

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

YOUR "lack of support" PROVES that this fake annuity is FICTITIOUS!!!

[Alan Baker]

Then your '"lack of support" PROVES' the same about all your claims...

...agreed?

:-)

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Saying that annuity is real w/o revealing it is PROOF it is FICTITIOUS! All you keep on doing is DENYING the facts.

Don't EVER ask me to cite a source for ANYTHING until you REVEAL this so-called annuity - and I will REMIND you of that!!!!

[Alan Baker]

You have literally dozens of claims to provide sources for before this
annuity was ever mentioned.

[Bigbird]

> Saying that annuity is real w/o revealing it is it is
>

That is not true but it is interesting that by asserting it you are
effectively admitting every unsupported claim of yours is fictitious...
including your wealth and dealing.

Looks like you shot yourself in the foot and lost again, Flaccid.

You really are just a demented old fart.

[-hh]

Alan wrote:

> TomS wrote:
>> Don't EVER ask me to cite a source for ANYTHING until you REVEAL
>> this so-called annuity - and I will REMIND you of that!!!!
>
> You have literally dozens of claims to provide sources for before this
> annuity was ever mentioned.

Indeed.

The crux of the matter is that Tom has repeatedly refused to honor requests
to substantiate his claims. Even if more details were to be freely provided on
VCP, the likelihood that Tom would now start to reciprocate in the form of
honoring his backlog of prior substantiation requests ... is zero.

Tom already knows what he must to do to earn this information.
Shouting louder isn’t one of them


-hh

[TomS]

...right after you reveal which FICTITIOUS annuity yields 8%!

[-hh]

Incorrect, since your claims came first.

Plus you've failed to articulate what the IRL ramifications are for you if you fail
to keep your above promise of delivery.

Make a clear & balanced proposal that is enforceable. I then get to pick
which party. FYI, this is akin to saying that you cut the cake in half and then
I get to choose which half is mine.


-hh

[TomS]

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

>
> ...right after you reveal which annuity yields 8%!

You really are a mentally deficient piece of shit and demented old fart.

[-hh]

"right after [I] reveal which ... Annuity ..." what?
That's an incomplete statement.

Just what are you saying that you will do, Tom?

Your silence on the matter means you're not making any promise.



-hh

[TomS]

Hidin' Hughie,

You know EXACTLY what I meant! WHAT annuity yields EIGHT PERCENT????

[Alan Baker]

The one that he was offered.

I've seen the details.

My terms for revealing what I know are the same as yours:

A $1,000 cashier's cheque.

:-)

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> TomS wrote:

>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> Incorrect, since your claims came first.
>>>>> Plus you've failed to articulate what the IRL ramifications are for you if you fail
>>>>> to keep your above promise of delivery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make a clear & balanced proposal that is enforceable. I then get to pick
>>>>> which party. FYI, this is akin to saying that you cut the cake in half and then
>>>>> I get to choose which half is mine.
>>>>

>>>> ...right after you reveal which FICTITIOUS annuity yields 8%!
>>>
>>> "right after [I] reveal which ... Annuity ..." what?
>>> That's an incomplete statement.
>>>
>>> Just what are you saying that you will do, Tom?
>>> Your silence on the matter means you're not making any promise.
>>

>> Hidin' Hughie,
>> You know EXACTLY what I meant! WHAT annuity yields EIGHT PERCENT????

Oh, I know what Tom implied, but that’s deliberately ambiguous.

> The one that he was offered.
> I've seen the details.
> My terms for revealing what I know are the same as yours:
> A $1,000 cashier's cheque.

Just for fun, I’ve added a recused jpg of the first page on /2019b/

:-)

-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> You know what I meant! annuity yields ?

The demented old fart is absolutely desperate.

Put your money where your mouth is arsehole.

[TomS]

Hey Liar,

NAME this FICTITIOUS annuity! Failure to do so is an ADMISSION that you are a LIAR!!!

[Bigbird]

> > Just for fun, I’ve added a recused jpg of the first page on 2019b
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
> this annuity! Failure to do so is an that you are a

LOL, it's hilarious to see you flapping about on the hook. You're such
a loser.

You know the deal pay up or flap your gums in vain.

You can't complain. AH is playing by your rules.

At least you can be sure he will provide support while you never have.

You really are a demented old fart.