Senate Removes ObamaCare Mandate in Tax Bill

[showa58taro]

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

Ok. Great. We've gotten this far. Now let's pump the brakes here...

According to you insurance prices rely on actuarial esimates as opposed to market and demand. If that is the case, why do Obamacare premiums skyrocket to completely non-affordable heights year after year? Also, why do multiple insurance companies exist if the money is going to be the same, based on actuarial estimates?

Nope. That is not what I said. Try again.

[Foo]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

[showa58taro]

Seb, what would happen to the price of gold if a law was passed that you must buy gold every month or pay a tax penalty?

What’s the determinant here? Given that this is fictitious gold, are there fictitious mechanisms in place to avoid price inflation? Are there subsidies to purchase gold and rules how expensive gold is?

Or is it literally there’s only so much gold and suddenly everyone needs it? What’s the interest rates in the US and global market? Is it a recession or an economic boom? Is GDP increasing or decreasing? What is silver doing, or other commodities?

We are talking about gold in the world today. If a government passes a law that requires citizens to purchase gold every month or pay a tax penalty, is that action likely to make the price go up or down?

Until you answer my questions then I don’t know what the price of gold would be. The US isn’t the sole purchaser of gold. So your increase in demand if it coincides with a mass decrease because of the current trend in silver and other commodities, combined with low inflation and low risk of recession, likely means Gold is cheaper. If it’s combined with higher interest rates, low GDP growth, and potential recession then the price might skyrocket.

Let me ask this in the simplest way possible. Is a mandate to purchase gold an upwards price influencer or a downwards price influencer. This means, all things being equal, is that single action likely to increase or decrease the price.

Increase

See my previous post about how “all things being equal” treatment and simplification.

[showa58taro]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think it’s a pure single actuarial axiom? Honestly we need to sort out the way you read things.

The point of pricing insurance that sets it apart from socks or gold is that it has many extrinsic factors and a huge part of this is the actuarial estimates, the spread of the risk pool and likely exposure by the firm, combined with basic market forces, government subsidization and risk removal mechanisms, and the competition regime and regulation of consumer protection.

So your “this is what happens when everyone buys insurance” Schtick is silly and simply too narrow to be relevant.

[Foo]

Seb, what would happen to the price of gold if a law was passed that you must buy gold every month or pay a tax penalty?

What’s the determinant here? Given that this is fictitious gold, are there fictitious mechanisms in place to avoid price inflation? Are there subsidies to purchase gold and rules how expensive gold is?

Or is it literally there’s only so much gold and suddenly everyone needs it? What’s the interest rates in the US and global market? Is it a recession or an economic boom? Is GDP increasing or decreasing? What is silver doing, or other commodities?

We are talking about gold in the world today. If a government passes a law that requires citizens to purchase gold every month or pay a tax penalty, is that action likely to make the price go up or down?

Until you answer my questions then I don’t know what the price of gold would be. The US isn’t the sole purchaser of gold. So your increase in demand if it coincides with a mass decrease because of the current trend in silver and other commodities, combined with low inflation and low risk of recession, likely means Gold is cheaper. If it’s combined with higher interest rates, low GDP growth, and potential recession then the price might skyrocket.

Let me ask this in the simplest way possible. Is a mandate to purchase gold an upwards price influencer or a downwards price influencer. This means, all things being equal, is that single action likely to increase or decrease the price.

Increase

See my previous post about how “all things being equal” treatment and simplification.

I get what you are saying. The downward forces were not working in this case. You actually left out the biggest part of this mess, which is human behavioral changes, which was the biggest price influencer during the ObamaCare era. (and largely not his doing)

[showa58taro]

Seb, what would happen to the price of gold if a law was passed that you must buy gold every month or pay a tax penalty?

What’s the determinant here? Given that this is fictitious gold, are there fictitious mechanisms in place to avoid price inflation? Are there subsidies to purchase gold and rules how expensive gold is?

Or is it literally there’s only so much gold and suddenly everyone needs it? What’s the interest rates in the US and global market? Is it a recession or an economic boom? Is GDP increasing or decreasing? What is silver doing, or other commodities?

We are talking about gold in the world today. If a government passes a law that requires citizens to purchase gold every month or pay a tax penalty, is that action likely to make the price go up or down?

Until you answer my questions then I don’t know what the price of gold would be. The US isn’t the sole purchaser of gold. So your increase in demand if it coincides with a mass decrease because of the current trend in silver and other commodities, combined with low inflation and low risk of recession, likely means Gold is cheaper. If it’s combined with higher interest rates, low GDP growth, and potential recession then the price might skyrocket.

Let me ask this in the simplest way possible. Is a mandate to purchase gold an upwards price influencer or a downwards price influencer. This means, all things being equal, is that single action likely to increase or decrease the price.

Increase

See my previous post about how “all things being equal” treatment and simplification.

I get what you are saying. The downward forces were not working in this case. You actually left out the biggest part of this mess, which is human behavioral changes, which was the biggest price influencer during the ObamaCare era. (and largely not his doing)

They were working better than after Republicans disabled them. But yeah, premiums did increase as they had before Obamacare, rather than properly regulating the market downwards. Obamacare is better than the old “pre-existing condition disqualification” days, but it’s a shot solution to a much bigger problem.

[Foo]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think it’s a pure single actuarial axiom? Honestly we need to sort out the way you read things.

The point of pricing insurance that sets it apart from socks or gold is that it has many extrinsic factors and a huge part of this is the actuarial estimates, the spread of the risk pool and likely exposure by the firm, combined with basic market forces, government subsidization and risk removal mechanisms, and the competition regime and regulation of consumer protection.

So your “this is what happens when everyone buys insurance” Schtick is silly and simply too narrow to be relevant.

The collection of upward and downward influencers on price matter. When you apply more upward pressure than downward pressures, the price goes up, as it did massively under Obama. It was just a flawed plan.

As an example, everyone wants to rant about pre-existing conditions. Well, that is a huge upward pressure on price. If we want to accept that as a society, fine, but let's be honest about the actual financial repercussions of it.

"Yeah, your premium doubled, but Johnny the Dopehead now gets his methadone for free and the town whore got two free abortions already!"

[Jason]

Seb, what would happen to the price of gold if a law was passed that you must buy gold every month or pay a tax penalty?

What’s the determinant here? Given that this is fictitious gold, are there fictitious mechanisms in place to avoid price inflation? Are there subsidies to purchase gold and rules how expensive gold is?

Or is it literally there’s only so much gold and suddenly everyone needs it? What’s the interest rates in the US and global market? Is it a recession or an economic boom? Is GDP increasing or decreasing? What is silver doing, or other commodities?

We are talking about gold in the world today. If a government passes a law that requires citizens to purchase gold every month or pay a tax penalty, is that action likely to make the price go up or down?

Until you answer my questions then I don’t know what the price of gold would be. The US isn’t the sole purchaser of gold. So your increase in demand if it coincides with a mass decrease because of the current trend in silver and other commodities, combined with low inflation and low risk of recession, likely means Gold is cheaper. If it’s combined with higher interest rates, low GDP growth, and potential recession then the price might skyrocket.

LMAO. It's like pulling teeth over here to get you to stay on track.

It seems to be hard to get you and Foo to try and stop oversimplification of complex ideas to try and fit into your scenario.

Everything above is a part of determining the price point of gold. Adding a hypothetical about buying more of it doesn’t change those principles. Just adds to one of a multitude of variables.

Which is actually a great great point to make about the Insurance debate. Could prices have gone up because of more demand and more consumers? Possible. Could it also have gone up because the “risk ceiling” increased under Trump as the indication was many cost recucing and risk reducing mechanisms would be repealed or not paid out? Possible also. Could premiums and prices increase due to the increased burden on the health system and the increased number of people affected by obesity, physical violence, and drug abuse? Also possible. Almost those are increasing in some areas for some reasons. Could prices go up because of increased life spans of the elderly due to technological advances? Possible. Could prices be increasing because of R&D costs for high-value drugs? Also possible.

Nothing is simple, but a few things become clear. Obamacare premiums increased and that is a problem but they are about to increase more now that fewer healthy people lower the risk pool and distribute costs. The refusal to renew common sense cost reduction mechanisms also increased premiums. That’s the truth here. The rest of your point is such an ancillary comment it is laughable.

I'll just give you the answer:

1) The reason Obamacare premiums skyrocket year after year is not because fewer healthy people lower the risk pool (fucking lol), but because now there is no competition to bring the prices down.

2) The reason multiple insurance companies exist is because competition drives prices down. If it were all "actuarial estimates!!!", there would be no point in having multiple insurance companies. If 4 health insurance companies are competing for John Doe's business, they're going to compete with each other to make the most appealing offer. If John Doe has a choice in the matter, he's going to go with the most affordable plan, or say fuck you to all of them and not buy into health insurance at all. The freedom itself to choose whether or not to get health insurance drives prices down. I am paying out the ass, a ridiculous amount of money, for "insurance" that I don't want and am forced to pay for. It can't even cover a simple blood drawing or a doctor visit. This is what happens when you eliminate competition, and eliminate the freedom to choose whether or not you want health insurance at all. When Trump kills Obamacare and brings back the competitive market to health insurance, golly gee what a coincidence it will be when I am paying DRASTICALLY less money for health insurance.




You're insisting on searching for complex answers to extremely simple solutions. A competitive market will drive down prices 100% of the time, this includes insurance.

[Jason]

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

Ok. Great. We've gotten this far. Now let's pump the brakes here...

According to you insurance prices rely on actuarial esimates as opposed to market and demand. If that is the case, why do Obamacare premiums skyrocket to completely non-affordable heights year after year? Also, why do multiple insurance companies exist if the money is going to be the same, based on actuarial estimates?

Nope. That is not what I said. Try again.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are impossible.

[showa58taro]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think it’s a pure single actuarial axiom? Honestly we need to sort out the way you read things.

The point of pricing insurance that sets it apart from socks or gold is that it has many extrinsic factors and a huge part of this is the actuarial estimates, the spread of the risk pool and likely exposure by the firm, combined with basic market forces, government subsidization and risk removal mechanisms, and the competition regime and regulation of consumer protection.

So your “this is what happens when everyone buys insurance” Schtick is silly and simply too narrow to be relevant.

The collection of upward and downward influencers on price matter. When you apply more upward pressure than downward pressures, the price goes up, as it did massively under Obama. It was just a flawed plan.

As an example, everyone wants to rant about pre-existing conditions. Well, that is a huge upward pressure on price. If we want to accept that as a society, fine, but let's be honest about the actual financial repercussions of it.

"Yeah, your premium doubled, but Johnny the Dopehead now gets his methadone for free and the town whore got two free abortions already!"

Exactly my point I’ve been making this whole time.

Your point and Jason’s point was that prices were obligated to go up because more people were meant to be KC sumers.

I mean, I guess I’m glad you agree with me, but next time just start there?

[Jason]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think it’s a pure single actuarial axiom? Honestly we need to sort out the way you read things.

The point of pricing insurance that sets it apart from socks or gold is that it has many extrinsic factors and a huge part of this is the actuarial estimates, the spread of the risk pool and likely exposure by the firm, combined with basic market forces, government subsidization and risk removal mechanisms, and the competition regime and regulation of consumer protection.

So your “this is what happens when everyone buys insurance” Schtick is silly and simply too narrow to be relevant.

The collection of upward and downward influencers on price matter. When you apply more upward pressure than downward pressures, the price goes up, as it did massively under Obama. It was just a flawed plan.

As an example, everyone wants to rant about pre-existing conditions. Well, that is a huge upward pressure on price. If we want to accept that as a society, fine, but let's be honest about the actual financial repercussions of it.

"Yeah, your premium doubled, but Johnny the Dopehead now gets his methadone for free and the town whore got two free abortions already!"

Exactly my point I’ve been making this whole time.

Your point and Jason’s point was that prices were obligated to go up because more people were meant to be KC sumers.

I mean, I guess I’m glad you agree with me, but next time just start there?

The greatest backpedaling switch-a-roo I've ever seen.

[showa58taro]

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

Ok. Great. We've gotten this far. Now let's pump the brakes here...

According to you insurance prices rely on actuarial esimates as opposed to market and demand. If that is the case, why do Obamacare premiums skyrocket to completely non-affordable heights year after year? Also, why do multiple insurance companies exist if the money is going to be the same, based on actuarial estimates?

Nope. That is not what I said. Try again.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are impossible.

Buddy, it’s not my fault you can’t read.

[showa58taro]

You seem to have undermined your own argument.

You seem to be living on fantasy island.

Because I don’t rely on shit pretend scenarios and straw men? Yeah, that’s what is fantastical in this discussion.

Pretend? This is real life, sir. Why do countless insurance companies exist if you believe they are all based on the same estimates?

Literally never made that point once. See what I mean about straw men. You’re relying on defeating an argument I never made.

Your point is "Insurance premiums are based on risk and actuarial estimates".

Cool beans. Let's say 4 insurance companies exist. Will they all have the same price tag for John Doe's business, or will they compete with each other to get John Doe's business?

Are you somehow confusing actuarial estimates as a mathematical law or summat? Geez. Like trying to explain things to a dotard. Honestly, go read up on this stuff instead of trying to give these random hypotheticals that are irrelevant bro.

No, you began arguing about how the market operates, then went down the "read up on it, bro", "I never made that point once", "That's a straw man scenario" route. You can't answer a simple question without derailing yourself at every turn.

"Oh my gah, is that actuarial esimate based on mathematical law? You have alzheimer's or something. My gay brother smokes pot".

You're pulling a J-Mac, here.

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

You then seemed to confuse that point with some kind of universal pricing structure. And away we ran.

If the pricing was solely based on actuarial estimates, the whole premise of the mandate is flawed, The premise of the mandate is that healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people. More people in the marketplace does not change the actuarial results for a given person. Actuarial estimates are part of the pricing, but the big picture of sustaining the system is the larger part.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think it’s a pure single actuarial axiom? Honestly we need to sort out the way you read things.

The point of pricing insurance that sets it apart from socks or gold is that it has many extrinsic factors and a huge part of this is the actuarial estimates, the spread of the risk pool and likely exposure by the firm, combined with basic market forces, government subsidization and risk removal mechanisms, and the competition regime and regulation of consumer protection.

So your “this is what happens when everyone buys insurance” Schtick is silly and simply too narrow to be relevant.

The collection of upward and downward influencers on price matter. When you apply more upward pressure than downward pressures, the price goes up, as it did massively under Obama. It was just a flawed plan.

As an example, everyone wants to rant about pre-existing conditions. Well, that is a huge upward pressure on price. If we want to accept that as a society, fine, but let's be honest about the actual financial repercussions of it.

"Yeah, your premium doubled, but Johnny the Dopehead now gets his methadone for free and the town whore got two free abortions already!"

Exactly my point I’ve been making this whole time.

Your point and Jason’s point was that prices were obligated to go up because more people were meant to be KC sumers.

I mean, I guess I’m glad you agree with me, but next time just start there?

The greatest backpedaling switch-a-roo I've ever seen.

Foo did backpedal but it’s not that bad.

[Jason]

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

Ok. Great. We've gotten this far. Now let's pump the brakes here...

According to you insurance prices rely on actuarial esimates as opposed to market and demand. If that is the case, why do Obamacare premiums skyrocket to completely non-affordable heights year after year? Also, why do multiple insurance companies exist if the money is going to be the same, based on actuarial estimates?

Nope. That is not what I said. Try again.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are impossible.

Buddy, it’s not my fault you can’t read.

Seb: "I went to the store today."
Me: "What did you get at the store"
Seb: "I didn't get anything."
Me: "What did you go to the store for, then?"
Seb: "Learn to read. I didn't go to the store today".

[showa58taro]

Indeed. I did highlight that it’s not just a demand-led market like a consumable. And that pricing relies on actuarial estimates.

Ok. Great. We've gotten this far. Now let's pump the brakes here...

According to you insurance prices rely on actuarial esimates as opposed to market and demand. If that is the case, why do Obamacare premiums skyrocket to completely non-affordable heights year after year? Also, why do multiple insurance companies exist if the money is going to be the same, based on actuarial estimates?

Nope. That is not what I said. Try again.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are impossible.

Buddy, it’s not my fault you can’t read.

Seb: "I went to the store today."
Me: "What did you get at the store"
Seb: "I didn't get anything."
Me: "What did you go to the store for, then?"
Seb: "Learn to read. I didn't go to the store today".

And we are back at hypothetical straw men that didn’t happen to prove a point you can’t prove with real facts. Interesting.

[Jason]

Fixed.


Seb: "I went to the store today."
Me: "What did you get at the store"
Seb: "I didn't get anything."
Me: "What did you go to the store for, then?"
Seb: "Learn to read, u stupid straw man. I didn't go to the store today"

[showa58taro]

Good straw man. Very robust. Would burn a cop inside it.

[Jason]

lol. Gotta run.

Love you, Seb. Truly.

[showa58taro]

lol. Gotta run.

Love you, Seb. Truly.

Big hug, buddy. I only rib because I know you can take it. Catch you later.