The IOU argument is that it is not an asset. Borrowing from yourself is not an asset as it is also a liability. I guess you could solve it the way Reagan did though, raise the taxes and more chain to the chain-letter, more pyramid to the pyramid scheme, more suckers to the ponzi scheme
But why even do that? Why not replace the program with a private pension plan that actually generate returns, positive return. Everyone who retire now will have paid in more than they get out.
Maybe we should be asking why their corporate masters paid nothing in taxes last year? I have more money in the seats of my car than they paid in taxes last year. Maybe chowderhead should be calling BP and GE and ask why we are the ones who should pay their taxes.
@IzzySpeaks but if you tax the rich how will they afford to send jobs overseas, fund right-wing think tanks, bribe government officials, start wars to secure foreign resources and gamble our economy into a ditch every 5-10 years?
@smpunditz They already do all these things. I used to work for Toro in WI. They sent all those jobs to Mexico and told us tough shit. So they already do this and have been doing it for a very long time.
@Uberhilarious Worked for Galveston Texas, Works for Chile, we had to do it in Sweden and that is a part of the pension program that works really well.
Why is privatization such an evil word? The alternative here is that you give the money to politicians and trust they keep it safe until you retire and invest it wisely. That is a terrible investment.
Privatizing social social security is still giving your money to the politicians, they just now decide where your money is invested.
Even worse it's also giving your money to Wall Street and we saw what happened to a lot of people's pension funds thanks to Wall Street. I wouldn't exactly consider the marketplace more trustworthy.
@smpunditz That would be a weird model for privatization. True privatization means that you handle your own pension plan. As it is now the politicians are deciding if you can even have it back. I bet you wont
Not at all, Wall Street while volatile does have positive return over time. You lose money placing it in the Social Security trust fund. The fact is that the marketplace is more trustworthy. For instance, they can't loot billions, like Reagan did or Obamacare does.
@Visfen I don't know what Obamacare has to do with social security. In any case both Reagan and Obama were/are puppets of Wall Street. What do you think motivates politicians to screw people in the first place. If politicians can't be trusted to not raid social security than they can't be trusted to privatize it in the way you define 'true privatization' and keep it that way. It's not that I trust politicians, I don't want them to privatize it because I don't trust them.
@smpunditz Pardon me, I was thinking about the Medicare. Obamacare loots medicare.
I don't care what politicians motives are, because the only motives they ever have is re-election. I care about the consequences of the policies.
Even if they privatize it a little, it will be better than what you have now. But sure enough, the reason they are demonizing anyone that suggest privatization is because they don't want to lose their cash cow.
@Visfen while I don't support Obamacare the specific element of medicare that Obama looted was Part D which was an inefficient system anyway.
Motives is very important I don't think you follow me. Those politicians are just going to funnel money to their contributors when they privatize not give taxpayers viable investing options.
@smpunditz I disagree with the very existence of Medicare D but I can't find any article supporting that it was only from there he took the money. In fact I'm fairly sure it was the general medicare fund.
Motives are irrelevant.
They are funneling the money now and you get nothing at all, what do you have to lose?
god damn, if they really think that social security as it is now is that bad then they are deluded. With your pathetic tax system for the rich who only pay like 8-16% tax. O they create jobs ?? jeh right, the real US job creating companies are creating jobs indeed.. in fucking CHINA. Have fun with that! wages go that way, without a decent return except the under the line profit of a multinational that doesn't really give a shit about you US consumers. Net profit with tax breaks is awesome!!!!
anyone who thinks the motivations of the naysayers is anything other than an attempt to pillage Social Security, is kidding themselves. they've been jockeying for it now for over ten years.
Totally agree with you on this. And let's remember, that the entire payroll tax holiday, in terms of FICA, is a huge trojan horse, specifically designed to defund this program, so that it actually WILL become insolvent. And this is promoted by Obama, no less, who is essentially corporate puppet. There is so much disinformation out there: Obama is a socialist + on+ on. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's handing everything over to the right wing, on a silver platter. It's bad.
Privatising Job Centres in the UK has led to less people on the unemployment line but only because they're making people (especially the disabled) do so much unecessary shit for their money applicants are just telling them to go fuck themselves and going into hospital permenantly.
Ponzi Scheme: Paying out money to "investors" in a scheme that is supposed to be a PROFIT MAKING enterprise using money from new investors to pay this "profit" out. Note there is no other source of money or earnings to create this "profit" and no money is invested in any way in any real world assets. Social Security: Money put into a profit earning investment system using government bonds to be paid out upon retirement by drawing on an individuals share of this pool. Is this money invested?
Ponzi Scheme: Paying out money to "investors" in a scheme that is supposed to be a PROFIT MAKING enterprise using money from new investors to pay this "profit" out. Note there is no other source of money or earnings to create this "profit" and no money is invested in any way in any real world assets. Social Security: Money put into a profit earning investment system using government bonds to be paid out upon retirement by drawing on an individuals share of this pool. Is this money invested?
@RyuDarragh Yes, it actually IS invested, but not in high-risk ponzi schemes, like derivative trading. You get a very modest return, and you won't fall into absolute poverty, if Wall Street gambles it all way. This is why the system was set up to start with. SS is NOT meant as a highly profitable investment thing, it is an insurance policy, so that old folks don't end up on the streets.
I've been paying into SS for a long time. I've got $279K into it. According to the SS departments own calculations, it's now worth $647K. That is, it *would* be if they hadn't been tapping into this trust fund and spending it.
@SmPunditz, excellent video calling out that corporate imperialist shill Steven Crowder, and dealing with the troll Sivels. Both effective pwn'ings of their BS. Thumbs up and sub'ed.
What you seem to be missing about the IOUs is that it is a loan from the government to the government. Loans to yourself are not an asset.
When social security starts to draw from the trust fund the government will have to raise taxes, borrow, or cut spending elsewhere. Even if the trust fund is drawn down completely it wouldn't make an economic difference. The government could continue paying for the social security deficits the exact same way as when their was a trust fund.
@lambedan I'm not missing anything. As I said in the video the two things causing the deficit is military spending and healthcare. I want to cut military at least to pre 1980's levels which I believe would be about 2/3.
A public option would probably cut healthcare costs by about half as that's what most western countries pay. So I am not at all against cutting spending. Furthermore the war profiteers and big pharma should be taxed for some of the money back. It's not like they earned it.
@smpunditz A public option wouldn't do anything to health care cost, unless you mean to introduce staunch price fixing also, which basically means you have the government decide who lives and dies like in the NHS and here in Sweden.
Sadly, cutting war spending isn't enough anymore, far from it. Taxing the rich wont do anything either. You need to reform medicare, that's the most important part. It's either that or bankruptcy of that program.
@lambedan You have it all backwards: the SS trust fund was fully funded until it was borrowed against. This means, that general expenditures, the general budget, used that money for other purposes - including war. If SS becomes insolvent, which it is NOT at this point, then it is because the general fund took the money out and cannot pay it back. SS is not a government hand-out program, but something that ordinary wage earner paid into, so that they would end up in destitution in old age.
You are absolutely right. You are paying in to social security and the politicians are giving that money directly to the richest people in the form of tax cuts.
Plan A: You're going to means test the very same people that you plan on expropriating even more revenue from by removing the cap? Ya that's going to go over real good. /rollseyes You better come up with a plan B.
@justintempler I don't believe that means testing is necessary in addition to lifting the cap. I don't even think means testing would even solve the shortfall problem unless it was very stringent which would defeat the purpose of the program entirely.
@Sivels I'm responding to an insult. What kind of argument do you expect to hear from me? What good are you libertarians to us? You don't run anything lol
@smpunditz We run businesses that create wealth for you to redistribute. Show some gratitude.
... and you don't get libertarianism. Libertarianism is about decentralized planning, what kind of sick person wants to order people around at the point of a gun? A dictator... and the useful idiot sheep that support him.
@Sivels that's all your hero the government is... a mandate, they don't actually run anything, they don't create anything all they do is steal resources from a given population and throw those resources around -bribing voters, killing people, enforcing drug and prostitution laws by breaking into family house dinners with SWAT teans crashing through the door-- overregulating, destroying wealth/potential wealth, even kids lemonade stands... You're a progressive fool, your brain is hardwired wrong
@Sivels 'We run businesses that create wealth for you to redistribute. Show some gratitude.'
We as in you?
I 've only heard of a few libertarian businessmen personally like the Koch Bros and Peter Thiel who are actually corporatists. Real libertarians aren't 'job creators', they are internet trolls (like yourself), conspiracy theorists and survivalists. Don't conflate yourself with your corporate overlords. You are not one of them and you never will be.
@smpunditz Most businessmen and women as well as small business owners are libertarians/classic liberals/small government conservatives... an incompetent such as yourself would never know how to be produce any real value to contribute to society, instead improving yourself and your dysmal worth you adopt an entire ideology and aggressively advocate statism to make yourself feel like you're in authority. It's because of people like you that democracy fails. Sheep.
Social Security have no fcking money left in it... CONgress spent all of the money from the trust money and replaced it with IOUs they knew were bogus... It's a ponzi scheme taxing new "investors" to pay of old ones (worse than a ponzi scheme because it is forced).
There's no money left in it, all of the money they taxed/supposedly saved for the taxpayer, they spent on wasteful government, wars, regulations, feminist studies (lol) - fuck knows.
SS is criminal, in the pvt sector they'd b jailed
@smpunditz funny how you're uncapable of making a substantiated argument. All you're doing is simplistic inbased theories and trying to discredit mister Crowder by NOT even addressing the arguments but instead committing the poisoning of the well-fallacy. Logic fail.
Staying ignorant will have consequences. You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
@Sivels actually I addressed Crowder's claims of social security being a ponzi scheme specifically. Did you watch the video or did your raving troll impulses force you to type your insults before you could watch through the first 3 minutes.
As for your poisoning the well fallacy I find it rather important to know people's motives when they push a political agenda. Are you so dumb as to think that is irrelevant?
@smpunditz you have no way of knowing anybody's motives, I don't think you understand your own motives either. In any given debate, the last thing the loser will always do is seek to discredit the opponent through ad hominem... That's the first thing you do in the video. Telling, telling indeed. Enough time wasted on you.
@Sivels I told you you didn't have anything better to do now didn't I. Can't help yourself. Pathetic. But guess what I really am done because I in fact do have better things to do. Goodbye and enjoy spending the next few hours of the night spamming insults on my channel because you have no life.
@smpunditz better be a troll than grownass man with the thinking capability of an 8-year old... Wait, 8-year olds often haven't been indoctrinated yet.
The IOU argument is that it is not an asset. Borrowing from yourself is not an asset as it is also a liability. I guess you could solve it the way Reagan did though, raise the taxes and more chain to the chain-letter, more pyramid to the pyramid scheme, more suckers to the ponzi scheme
But why even do that? Why not replace the program with a private pension plan that actually generate returns, positive return. Everyone who retire now will have paid in more than they get out.
Visfen 5 months ago
Maybe we should be asking why their corporate masters paid nothing in taxes last year? I have more money in the seats of my car than they paid in taxes last year. Maybe chowderhead should be calling BP and GE and ask why we are the ones who should pay their taxes.
IzzySpeaks 5 months ago
@IzzySpeaks but if you tax the rich how will they afford to send jobs overseas, fund right-wing think tanks, bribe government officials, start wars to secure foreign resources and gamble our economy into a ditch every 5-10 years?
SOCIALIST SCUM!!!!!!
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz They already do all these things. I used to work for Toro in WI. They sent all those jobs to Mexico and told us tough shit. So they already do this and have been doing it for a very long time.
IzzySpeaks 4 months ago
@IzzySpeaks I was being sarcastic
smpunditz 4 months ago
@smpunditz Sometimes I just slow on the uptake :)
IzzySpeaks 4 months ago
Yeah, cause privatizing really works.. Is there serious talk of privatizing? That is scary, talk about not learning..
Uberhilarious 5 months ago
@Uberhilarious Worked for Galveston Texas, Works for Chile, we had to do it in Sweden and that is a part of the pension program that works really well.
Why is privatization such an evil word? The alternative here is that you give the money to politicians and trust they keep it safe until you retire and invest it wisely. That is a terrible investment.
Visfen 5 months ago
@Visfen
Privatizing social social security is still giving your money to the politicians, they just now decide where your money is invested.
Even worse it's also giving your money to Wall Street and we saw what happened to a lot of people's pension funds thanks to Wall Street. I wouldn't exactly consider the marketplace more trustworthy.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz That would be a weird model for privatization. True privatization means that you handle your own pension plan. As it is now the politicians are deciding if you can even have it back. I bet you wont
Not at all, Wall Street while volatile does have positive return over time. You lose money placing it in the Social Security trust fund. The fact is that the marketplace is more trustworthy. For instance, they can't loot billions, like Reagan did or Obamacare does.
Visfen 5 months ago
@Visfen I don't know what Obamacare has to do with social security. In any case both Reagan and Obama were/are puppets of Wall Street. What do you think motivates politicians to screw people in the first place. If politicians can't be trusted to not raid social security than they can't be trusted to privatize it in the way you define 'true privatization' and keep it that way. It's not that I trust politicians, I don't want them to privatize it because I don't trust them.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz Pardon me, I was thinking about the Medicare. Obamacare loots medicare.
I don't care what politicians motives are, because the only motives they ever have is re-election. I care about the consequences of the policies.
Even if they privatize it a little, it will be better than what you have now. But sure enough, the reason they are demonizing anyone that suggest privatization is because they don't want to lose their cash cow.
Visfen 5 months ago
@Visfen while I don't support Obamacare the specific element of medicare that Obama looted was Part D which was an inefficient system anyway.
Motives is very important I don't think you follow me. Those politicians are just going to funnel money to their contributors when they privatize not give taxpayers viable investing options.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz I disagree with the very existence of Medicare D but I can't find any article supporting that it was only from there he took the money. In fact I'm fairly sure it was the general medicare fund.
Motives are irrelevant.
They are funneling the money now and you get nothing at all, what do you have to lose?
Visfen 5 months ago
@Visfen No, you're right. I was a little harsh. It does work sometimes. I just see the potential for abuse, unchecked it can get out of hand.
Uberhilarious 5 months ago
@Uberhilarious The current system where politicians use the social security "trust fund" (that's a laugh) is far less trust worthy than wall street.
Competition keeps people in check much better than the voting booth. That's why markets are more rational than governments.
Visfen 5 months ago
god damn, if they really think that social security as it is now is that bad then they are deluded. With your pathetic tax system for the rich who only pay like 8-16% tax. O they create jobs ?? jeh right, the real US job creating companies are creating jobs indeed.. in fucking CHINA. Have fun with that! wages go that way, without a decent return except the under the line profit of a multinational that doesn't really give a shit about you US consumers. Net profit with tax breaks is awesome!!!!
kloneo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul's plan will balance the budget in 3 years without raising taxes!
Social programs remain untouched as the BIG problems are resolved.
Government employees will be phased out as they quit/retire or moved to other jobs. Learn more at /watch?v=IQAHziV3HoM
vechorik 4 months ago
glad to be seeing your vids more often.
anyone who thinks the motivations of the naysayers is anything other than an attempt to pillage Social Security, is kidding themselves. they've been jockeying for it now for over ten years.
gothatfunk 5 months ago
@gothatfunk more like 30 years. That's why Reagan tried to sabotage it.
smpunditz 5 months ago
that guy must be fun at parties..
Glad to see you back, sir!
adrastea 5 months ago
good video.
SiriusMined 5 months ago
Totally agree with you on this. And let's remember, that the entire payroll tax holiday, in terms of FICA, is a huge trojan horse, specifically designed to defund this program, so that it actually WILL become insolvent. And this is promoted by Obama, no less, who is essentially corporate puppet. There is so much disinformation out there: Obama is a socialist + on+ on. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's handing everything over to the right wing, on a silver platter. It's bad.
55ella2007k 5 months ago
your need for welfare does not oblige me to pay for it. Pay your own way, and I will as well.
chrisbuxton1958 5 months ago
really informational video, thanks hon.
classyass 5 months ago
Privatising Job Centres in the UK has led to less people on the unemployment line but only because they're making people (especially the disabled) do so much unecessary shit for their money applicants are just telling them to go fuck themselves and going into hospital permenantly.
DarthAzabrush 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ponzi Scheme: Paying out money to "investors" in a scheme that is supposed to be a PROFIT MAKING enterprise using money from new investors to pay this "profit" out. Note there is no other source of money or earnings to create this "profit" and no money is invested in any way in any real world assets. Social Security: Money put into a profit earning investment system using government bonds to be paid out upon retirement by drawing on an individuals share of this pool. Is this money invested?
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
Ponzi Scheme: Paying out money to "investors" in a scheme that is supposed to be a PROFIT MAKING enterprise using money from new investors to pay this "profit" out. Note there is no other source of money or earnings to create this "profit" and no money is invested in any way in any real world assets. Social Security: Money put into a profit earning investment system using government bonds to be paid out upon retirement by drawing on an individuals share of this pool. Is this money invested?
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
@RyuDarragh Yes, it actually IS invested, but not in high-risk ponzi schemes, like derivative trading. You get a very modest return, and you won't fall into absolute poverty, if Wall Street gambles it all way. This is why the system was set up to start with. SS is NOT meant as a highly profitable investment thing, it is an insurance policy, so that old folks don't end up on the streets.
55ella2007k 5 months ago
I've been paying into SS for a long time. I've got $279K into it. According to the SS departments own calculations, it's now worth $647K. That is, it *would* be if they hadn't been tapping into this trust fund and spending it.
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
@SmPunditz, excellent video calling out that corporate imperialist shill Steven Crowder, and dealing with the troll Sivels. Both effective pwn'ings of their BS. Thumbs up and sub'ed.
ZangaroZen 5 months ago
Comment removed
bradjbourgeois73 5 months ago
"Currently US treasury bonds are top sells in the investment community because the US is the safest place you can put your money."
Lolz.
NermalsChannel 5 months ago
What you seem to be missing about the IOUs is that it is a loan from the government to the government. Loans to yourself are not an asset.
When social security starts to draw from the trust fund the government will have to raise taxes, borrow, or cut spending elsewhere. Even if the trust fund is drawn down completely it wouldn't make an economic difference. The government could continue paying for the social security deficits the exact same way as when their was a trust fund.
lambedan 5 months ago
@lambedan I'm not missing anything. As I said in the video the two things causing the deficit is military spending and healthcare. I want to cut military at least to pre 1980's levels which I believe would be about 2/3.
A public option would probably cut healthcare costs by about half as that's what most western countries pay. So I am not at all against cutting spending. Furthermore the war profiteers and big pharma should be taxed for some of the money back. It's not like they earned it.
smpunditz 5 months ago 6
Comment removed
Visfen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smpunditz A public option wouldn't do anything to health care cost, unless you mean to introduce staunch price fixing also, which basically means you have the government decide who lives and dies like in the NHS and here in Sweden.
Sadly, cutting war spending isn't enough anymore, far from it. Taxing the rich wont do anything either. You need to reform medicare, that's the most important part. It's either that or bankruptcy of that program.
btw I am an economist.
Visfen 5 months ago
@lambedan You have it all backwards: the SS trust fund was fully funded until it was borrowed against. This means, that general expenditures, the general budget, used that money for other purposes - including war. If SS becomes insolvent, which it is NOT at this point, then it is because the general fund took the money out and cannot pay it back. SS is not a government hand-out program, but something that ordinary wage earner paid into, so that they would end up in destitution in old age.
55ella2007k 5 months ago
You are absolutely right. You are paying in to social security and the politicians are giving that money directly to the richest people in the form of tax cuts.
IAmDonar 5 months ago
Plan A: You're going to means test the very same people that you plan on expropriating even more revenue from by removing the cap? Ya that's going to go over real good. /rollseyes You better come up with a plan B.
justintempler 5 months ago
@justintempler where did I suggest means testing?
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz I have yet to hear of a single plan that does NOT include it.
justintempler 5 months ago
@justintempler I don't believe that means testing is necessary in addition to lifting the cap. I don't even think means testing would even solve the shortfall problem unless it was very stringent which would defeat the purpose of the program entirely.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz You probably won't like it but check out savingthedream . org
It's from Heritage
justintempler 5 months ago
The only (useful) idiot here, is you...
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels ah screaming paulian, libertarian, objectivist nutters. What would we do without you fools raging across the internetz.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz great argument.
What would you do without us? You'd run out over a cliff en masse - like lemmings.
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels I'm responding to an insult. What kind of argument do you expect to hear from me? What good are you libertarians to us? You don't run anything lol
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz We run businesses that create wealth for you to redistribute. Show some gratitude.
... and you don't get libertarianism. Libertarianism is about decentralized planning, what kind of sick person wants to order people around at the point of a gun? A dictator... and the useful idiot sheep that support him.
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels that's all your hero the government is... a mandate, they don't actually run anything, they don't create anything all they do is steal resources from a given population and throw those resources around -bribing voters, killing people, enforcing drug and prostitution laws by breaking into family house dinners with SWAT teans crashing through the door-- overregulating, destroying wealth/potential wealth, even kids lemonade stands... You're a progressive fool, your brain is hardwired wrong
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels teams*
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels 'We run businesses that create wealth for you to redistribute. Show some gratitude.'
We as in you?
I 've only heard of a few libertarian businessmen personally like the Koch Bros and Peter Thiel who are actually corporatists. Real libertarians aren't 'job creators', they are internet trolls (like yourself), conspiracy theorists and survivalists. Don't conflate yourself with your corporate overlords. You are not one of them and you never will be.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz Most businessmen and women as well as small business owners are libertarians/classic liberals/small government conservatives... an incompetent such as yourself would never know how to be produce any real value to contribute to society, instead improving yourself and your dysmal worth you adopt an entire ideology and aggressively advocate statism to make yourself feel like you're in authority. It's because of people like you that democracy fails. Sheep.
Sivels 5 months ago
Social Security have no fcking money left in it... CONgress spent all of the money from the trust money and replaced it with IOUs they knew were bogus... It's a ponzi scheme taxing new "investors" to pay of old ones (worse than a ponzi scheme because it is forced).
There's no money left in it, all of the money they taxed/supposedly saved for the taxpayer, they spent on wasteful government, wars, regulations, feminist studies (lol) - fuck knows.
SS is criminal, in the pvt sector they'd b jailed
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels social security has*
Sivels 5 months ago
zomg....i can actually do this....i haven't been able to do this in years.....
FIRST!
MutantBamHammer 5 months ago
@MutantBamHammer actually you're not lol
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz A curse upon this video sharing site, then!
MutantBamHammer 5 months ago
@smpunditz Welcome back.
A welcome all the heartier for being spot-on in your return video.
polymath7 5 months ago
@smpunditz funny how you're uncapable of making a substantiated argument. All you're doing is simplistic inbased theories and trying to discredit mister Crowder by NOT even addressing the arguments but instead committing the poisoning of the well-fallacy. Logic fail.
Staying ignorant will have consequences. You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels unfounded theories/talking points that you get from the Keith Olbermann or whoever the fuck you masturbate to.
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels actually I addressed Crowder's claims of social security being a ponzi scheme specifically. Did you watch the video or did your raving troll impulses force you to type your insults before you could watch through the first 3 minutes.
As for your poisoning the well fallacy I find it rather important to know people's motives when they push a political agenda. Are you so dumb as to think that is irrelevant?
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz you have no way of knowing anybody's motives, I don't think you understand your own motives either. In any given debate, the last thing the loser will always do is seek to discredit the opponent through ad hominem... That's the first thing you do in the video. Telling, telling indeed. Enough time wasted on you.
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels
'you have no way of knowing anybody's motives, I don't think you understand your own motives either.'
If you want to make a point you probably shouldn't contradict it in the next sentence lol
'Enough time wasted on you.'
Like you trolls have anything better to do.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz "'you have no way of knowing anybody's motives, I don't think you understand your own motives either.'
If you want to make a point you probably shouldn't contradict it in the next sentence lol"
lmao, speculation is not the same as knowing. You're a fucking dumbass... and you're fat as well. Did you ever do exercise in your lifetime?
Sivels 5 months ago
@Sivels I told you you didn't have anything better to do now didn't I. Can't help yourself. Pathetic. But guess what I really am done because I in fact do have better things to do. Goodbye and enjoy spending the next few hours of the night spamming insults on my channel because you have no life.
smpunditz 5 months ago
@smpunditz better be a troll than grownass man with the thinking capability of an 8-year old... Wait, 8-year olds often haven't been indoctrinated yet.
Sivels 5 months ago
Nice to see you making videos again.
KasparHauser6 5 months ago