Discussion in 'Central States Pension Fund Discussion' started by Bubba Gump, Jun 18, 2016.

  1. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    Sorry, can't quit just yet, I'll atleast be here until I get those answers to my questions.

    So far I have asked you these questions ten times. Here comes number eleven. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund? Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose with that return of 8% that you do nothing but repeat and under who's watch did this all take place?

    And all that you could muster up was some gibberish about the discount rate and how the government makes pension funds use this rate to determine the funding % of their funds, rambling on about the Rule of 72, how Michael Hudson uses 8.5% in the transcript, nonsense about nurses and beer, Hoffa Jr letting ups out the pension fund, wanting to talk about RPS, wanting us to be civil and something about you feeling like a Nazi and pervert, something about me wanting to woo the actives, asking if someone was looking for work and now wanting me to quit posting.
    Max likes this.
  2. Bubba Gump

    Bubba Gump Active Member

    NO U FOOL, I finally recognize you, you are the guy with pointy cowboy boots, perfect hair(which hair spray do you use), the gaudy teamster jacket. who always interrupt the union meetings and called everybody a M.F., I'll never forget that face of yours, BRO
  3. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    No it wouldn't

    Very good, that's absolutely correct except that you left out one minor detail. Sure, the person that I work for has to be financially responsible for that load just like the ones who were supposed to be monitoring and overseeing the fund. Guess what, just who do you think those individuals that were supposed to be monitoring and overseeing the fund work for. That's right, the government.

    Nice analogy though, just got to learn to add a little more depth to it.

    CSPF has no guarantees at all, the government seen to that with that 1982 consent decree and MPRA. Anything else?
  4. Bubba Gump

    Bubba Gump Active Member

    NO U FOOL, I know your gourd is full of dead brain cells from all that hair spray you inhaled over the years. so I will simplify his post for you, no restitution for you!!!!!!
  5. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    That's right, now I remember you, you were the one cowering in the corner.

    Sorry, if I just would of known how sensitive you were, I wouldn't of been yelling at you so loud.

    You're like a bowling pin, I keep knocking them down but they just keep resetting. lol
  6. EX396

    EX396 Well-Known Member

    Sure it would. If I have a net worth of $5MM and I go bet $5 on 00/0 at the roulette table, the odds of me hitting are low, but the risk is miniscule.

    Nope, your employer likely has insurance for such things. In the event they choose to self insure that CEO isn't paying for it, the corporation pays for it. My point is that you attempted to tie responsibility with liability. You should be able to tell that they aren't always tied together.

    All the more risky for you to count on it, knowing for the last 34 years that there was no guarantee. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

    The fund being in trouble isn't your fault. Your reliance on that fund is. I understand why you want to hold somebody accountable. I just believe you are looking in all the wrong places.
  7. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    Personally, I don't think you could simplify Jack & Jill or Humpty Dumpty. But I appreciate the thought. Anything else?

    Like I said, you're like a bowling pin and I love to bowl. lol
  8. Bubba Gump

    Bubba Gump Active Member

  9. Max

    Max New Member

    Full check....drain it till it's dry.!!!
    Is that what you want?
    That is exactly what you are striving for. Hope you get what you want. No arguments here. Same thing over and over. No restitution is what you want. Fine with me. Can't figure anyone so set against receiving a pension check.
    nounionfool likes this.
  10. Bubba Gump

    Bubba Gump Active Member

    NO U FOOL, when you are living in a card board box down by the river, I will bring you fresh vegetables from my garden. GOOD KARMA FOR ME.
  11. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    Like you said, YOU put in the bet so you are the one responsible. Just what don't you understand about the Wall Street bankers putting in the bet so they are the ones responsible. Then the government was to monitor and oversee the Wall Street bankers so that makes the government liable for the Wall Street bankers actions. It's a simple concept so why are you having a hard time grasping it.

    Another simple concept that you don't seem to grasp. I don't care if the employer has insurance or not, the responsibility still lies with the employer. They are the ones that have to file the claim.

    You're darn right, I not only attempted to tie responsibility with liability, I did. The Wall Street bankers were responsible for the risky investments and the government liable for the Wall Street bankers actions, being watchdog and all.

    What don't you understand about the 1982 consent decree and MPRA? You couldn't be more wrong, the 1982 consent decree stripped the fund and it's members of any and all control and MPRA stripped the guarantees. Which the members have been complaining about for decades because that 1982 consent decree stripped the fund and it's members of any and all control and now in the process of fighting MPRA because it took away that guarantee of no cuts as long as the fund remained solvent. So don't even try stating that there was no guarantee for 34 years.

    You're right, the fund being in trouble isn't our fault, that's why we won't be the ones who take on the responsibility of fixing it. The fault lies with the Wall Street bankers and the government and that's why they will be taking on the responsibility of fixing it.

    I understand why you don't hold those responsible accountable and believe we are looking in all the wrong places. You don't think it's possible to take on the Wall Street bankers and the government. That's what they count on, the majority being people who think like you. After all, that's why they keep getting away with it and will continue to do so because the people who think like me are the minority. One thing that we do have on our side, when it comes to the CSPF, the number of those members who are fighting is huge and that will make the difference. You may accept your role of a serf or peasant but there are many that don't.
  12. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    I think it's about time you consider changing the topic of this thread again because all of your posts lately should be in a thread called "Nothing but Gibberish".

    Do you really think that you are getting anywhere with all your gibberish? You're acting like a little kid going around the playground taunting the other kids because you didn't get your way.
  13. EX396

    EX396 Well-Known Member

    ....and with this post I am done debating you on this topic. It is apparent that you are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. You also seem so hellbent on holding somebody responsible. The personality type that sues and the reason we have warning labels on just about everything. The people that want to blame the gun, not the shooter. It's not about whether I think something is possible or not. It's whether or not it's the right thing to do.
    jimmy g likes this.
  14. Bubba Gump

    Bubba Gump Active Member

    this is it NO U FOOL, NO more post for me until the pension fund is cut. AT which time I will bring you fresh vegetables from my garden, down to the river, where you will be living in a card board box.
  15. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    You bet I'm hellbent on holding somebody responsible. If the government wants to control my affairs with me having any say so in the matter, I will be hellbent on holding them responsible if anything happens. If the members were the ones who elected the fiduciaries and the fund administrator, the responsibility would be for the members to monitor and oversee the fund, but it isn't.

    There's a big difference in suing because of their own negligence and irresponsibility like the warning labels on just about everything and holding somebody responsible that takes all control of someone's affairs with them having any say so in the matter. Why do you think we have those warning labels, because the government steps in and makes it possible by making laws so people don't have to be responsible for their own actions. That's what happens when the government takes control. That's right, you just go ahead and keep on believing in the government, they're your best friend and will always act in your best interest.

    As for the people that want to blame the gun, not the shooter. Why do you suppose that is. That's the government again, trying to brainwash those that think like you if they would only let the government take control and take away all the guns, nobody will have access to them. That's why they blame the gun and not the shooter. They're so brainwashed on the idea that the government will take care of them, they don't even realize the fact that it will be only the law abiding citizens that won't have access to the guns, just the criminals and cops. That's right, you just go ahead and keep on believing in the government, they're your best friend and will always act in your best interest.

    So don't try pinning the reason for America being a total disaster today on people who think like me, the real blame lies with those who think like you. So you see, you are the one who is brainwashed, not me. But you just go ahead and keep on believing in the government, they're your best friend and will always act in your best interest.
  16. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    You better not make promises you can't keep because it will only make you out to be a liar again. You know what happened last time. I'm going to hold you to your word because there won't be any cuts. So have a good life, I just wish that I could say, "nice knowing you".
  17. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    We finally agree on something. If someone smacks or tries to screw you in any way, shape or form, you fight like there is no tomorrow whether you think it's possible to win or not because that is the right thing to do.
  18. papajohn

    papajohn Banned

    Not one intelligent post was made on here!!! Bubba Gump, you have a lack of knowledge regarding the Central States Pension Fund. You can’t debate, which results to you using attacks, and chicanery. You refuse to recognize the ongoing Pension Theft by Wall Street fiduciaries, along with Government failures to enforce the provisions put in the 1982 Consent Decree, which was designed to protect the members. This is what caused the Central States Pension Fund financial crisis.

    Bubba Gump your failures includes , posting as fact, and your inability to not answer questions. Your ludicrous assumptions, are just that ludicrous!!! This has damaged his credibility. No one can take you serious, based on your prior post. You can’t have a debate, when the person you are debating is clueless, and unreasonable.

    Just what is it with people like you that open their mouth before they think? You make a statement that you will not post, until after the cuts occur, knowing you won’t be able to live up to your word, when you make such a statement. You could not even live up to your word for 12 hours. You have no moral fiber and integrity.

    This is your thread, so try to stay on topic!!! You have already posted trash on at least 2 other threads. IF YOU CHOOSE TO POST TRASH… KEEP IT ON YOUR OWN TREAD!!!
  19. nounionfool

    nounionfool Banned

    First of all, I'm replying to this post of yours from the "Ongoing Fight to Save the Central States Pension Fund" and answer it in your thread because that's where all your trashy posts belong. Like Papajohn said, you already ruined one thread with your trash and then even started your own thread which was nothing but trash from the onset. If you are determined to keep this charade going and us continuing to act like spoiled little brats bickering back and forth in a schoolyard, by all means, let's do it, but it will be in your trashy neighborhood. If you think that I'll play along with your idiotic notion of jumping from thread to thread doing nothing but trashing them with our petty squabbling, you are sadly mistaken. Notice how I said us and I, that's right, I included myself because, in my opinion, there's only one way to answer foolish, childish and antagonistic replies such as yours. And that's having to stoop down to the level that you are playing on. Although there is the other way of just ignoring you and hope that you just go away but I never chose that option in my life and I'm not going to start now, especially with a lying,deceitful and obnoxious person such as yourself.

    Now that I got that off my chest, let me answer your reply when you intentionally included myself of calling you a liar for using 70% when you shot off your mouth again without thinking. I want you to show me just where I called you a liar about using 70% anywhere. After all, why would I call you a liar over that anyway because you gave me more than enough ammunition about other things that proved you were a liar. Yes, I called you a liar and said that you went around spreading half truths which both were proven, so don't try and make it out that the reason you are a known as a liar with something as trivial as this. I know, you'll just keep rambling on with your gibberish about other things and never will come back with proof that backs up your statement just like when you refuse to answer my questions.
  20. yrc-atm

    yrc-atm commodities relocator

    Did you make yourself a moderator now?
    papajohn likes this.

Share This Page