Favorite War Room Posters

[Jack V Savage]

Certainly not on principle, but I'm sure there's considerable overlap. There are several persons here who I disagree with on 90% of issues but are rational and logical.

Also, my least favorite poster is probably Devout Pessimist. He's smarter than almost all of his peers, yet disregards utility, efficiency, and practicality for his sour, selfish interests. I don't think he does it for popularity or power, so he's not Ben Shapiro, but he's the closest here even if it's letting his own personal insecurities and reactionary reflex dictate his policy preference.

Glennrod, who I don't see post here much anymore, is the opposite: not very bright at all, but clearly driven by fairly stringent moral codes.

DP is far from my least-favorite poster (though I do get the sense that he's too smart to be posting the garbage that he posts), but good points throughout. I don't really have a least-favorite, actually. There are a huge number of interchangeable trolls, many of whom I don't read at all, but I see them as just noise rather than humans I dislike. Glenn is the unintentionally funniest poster on the board, rivaled by AS and Nostra.

 

[Trotsky]

DP is far from my least-favorite poster (though I do get the sense that he's too smart to be posting the garbage that he posts), but good points throughout. I don't really have a least-favorite, actually. There are a huge number of interchangeable trolls, many of whom I don't read at all, but I see them as just noise rather than humans I dislike. Glenn is the unintentionally funniest poster on the board, rivaled by AS and Nostra.

I have a really hard time differentiating the uber-reactionary ones. TheStruggle seems to stick out as particularly bad. Extremely similar to Pwent, but at least Pwent seems to be kind of self-aware to his own anti-intellectualism.

 

[MicroBrew]

@IDL has to be 1 of my favs.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have a really hard time differentiating the uber-reactionary ones. TheStruggle seems to stick out as particularly bad. Extremely similar to Pwent, but at least Pwent seems to be kind of self-aware to his own anti-intellectualism.

I'll always remember theStruggle because of one time he got hilariously hung out to dry. He was defending Trump's claim that he fired Comey because he was mean to Hillary *after* Trump already said that he would have fired him regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation because of the Russian investigation. I pointed out that he was too late and that the story changed, but he didn't get it for a while.

 

[Trotsky]

I'll always remember theStruggle because of one time he got hilariously hung out to dry. He was defending Trump's claim that he fired Comey because he was mean to Hillary *after* Trump already said that he would have fired him regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation because of the Russian investigation. I pointed out that he was too late and that the story changed, but he didn't get it for a while.

I don't know shit about drama and lore here. Except for the poster who pulled the "you're not black card" on Panamanian a few months ago. That was legitimately hilarious.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know shit about drama and lore here. Except for the poster who pulled the "you're not black card" on Panamanian a few months ago. That was legitimately hilarious.

That was classic. It was that he claimed to be an expert on black culture because he knew real life black people or something. Pan wasn't playing the card himself. The guy brought it up, leading to the "you know I'm black, right?" reply (something to that effect).

 

[PolishHeadlock]

My list is the same as it ever was but definitely want to add @TheGreatA @Kafir-kun and @ShinkanPo for giving a different world perspective imo.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I honestly don't know why you get so much shit from the right on here. your posts are almost always very thoughtful and well written.

I completely understand why people don't like @Jack V Savage. The guy can be, or at least unintentionally come off as, very smug when disagreeing with people.

That said I agree with you that his posts are insightful and well written, he's one of those posters who I make a point to read their posts for that reason. He's one of those posters that, if I see he's the last responder to a thread, I'll skip to his post to see what his thoughts on the topic are. Sometimes he's holding the torch for the left against some mouthbreathers but when he gets into it with the less retarded opposition the conversation can get very interesting. I'll even admit that it sometimes goes over my head.

I don't really care that he's sometimes smug, its usually not directed at me anyway and its amusing when directed at those who deserve it. And really, when compared to the filth that gets spewed here JVS' smug posts seem Christ-like in comparison and he more than makes up for it with the quality of his posts so he's definitely one of my favorite posters.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't know shit about drama and lore here. Except for the poster who pulled the "you're not black card" on Panamanian a few months ago. That was legitimately hilarious.

That was classic. It was that he claimed to be an expert on black culture because he knew real life black people or something. Pan wasn't playing the card himself. The guy brought it up, leading to the "you know I'm black, right?" reply (something to that effect).

It's an oops moment for sure. In fairness though, him being black doesn't mean he relates to or has experience with the inter-generational struggle of blacks in America. Especially being only 3rd generation and a silver-spoon kid (based on his boasts of his family's pre-immigration success). He clearly identifies heavily with his Carribean/Central American roots, at least enough to put them forth as his screen name. He'd probably still have experience with prejudice though, but not the systemic poverty and what it's like to grow up in those poor places. Any kid actually raised in the proverbial ghetto would be speaking more from a position of experience in that regard. But yeah, an embarrassingly bad assumption.

 

[HomerThompson]

LOL! Really? Really...? You can't understand one bit why @Jack V Savage would get shit from other posters, especially from the right? Jesus. You literally quoted him saying that the right is angry and the left are all normal people. I mean, the left isn't driven by anger? Antifa anyone? Or how about on page 1 of this thread



He's talking shit because this thread was started by a right leaning poster. Or how about @Trotsky the other day wishing Ben Shapiro dies from cancer because he disagrees with his politics.



That's NOT ANGRY!? HAha. You see posts like this all the time in the war room yet the right is hateful and driven by fear? Give me a fucking break. Both parties are the same, just on different ends of the spectrum.

In other words, the reason why Jack gets shit on is because he's full of shit. He's also not as smart as he thinks he is. If you look at his posts, he's one of those quantity over quality posters. He'll always type up these long posts to try to be perceived like he's smart but in reality 95% of his post is baseless bullshit drivel and only 5% is a thoughtful argument. He's also a better manipulator than he is a decent arguer. Whenever he gets backed up into a corner (which happens a lot) he'll try to deflect and change the argument to try to act like you're the one who is in the wrong. Moving the goal posts is one of his best moves when he's losing an argument. Oh not to mention he'll throw in personal insults when he's getting beat down by someone in a thread. He's also extremely biased yet is unwilling to admit it. I mean he says the right is angry and the left isn't, then goes to list all these posters he likes and ironically they are all left leaning posters.

He also has an absolute shitty sense of humor. His jokes are fucking terrible and you can tell he doesn't laugh at lot in real life. He'd be so fucking boring to hang out with. It would be like watching a retard trying to play patty cake.

@KONE @lecter @ripskater @Pwent @Devout Pessimist @GearSolidMetal @Dr J @Slippery Kantus @klnOmega @RhinoRush can all agree with this sentiment. Because we see it from another perspective. Jack's perspective is that he's 100% right the left is 100% correct and everything else is wrong.

Next time just say Jack Savage is a left wing pussy and you agree with him because of it. Thanks.

 

[Pwent]

I have a really hard time differentiating the uber-reactionary ones. TheStruggle seems to stick out as particularly bad. Extremely similar to Pwent, but at least Pwent seems to be kind of self-aware to his own anti-intellectualism.

I used to make only long thought out posts, which is why I'm respected by right wingers. Then I got lazy because most of the leftists here can't form an argument greater than "no you're wrong and stupid" after I destroy them repeatedly. Sometimes I bring it back out but what's the point if my opponents are cans

You just think I'm dumb because you have a warped sense of reality where you think a large scale communist nation is somehow realistic and you think Castro isn't really a bad guy, just complicated

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I used to make only long thought out posts, which is why I'm respected by right wingers. Then I got lazy because most of the leftists here can't form an argument greater than "no you're wrong and stupid" after I destroy them repeatedly. Sometimes I bring it back out but what's the point if my opponents are cans

You just think I'm dumb because you have a warped sense of reality where you think a large scale communist nation is somehow realistic and you think Castro isn't really a bad guy, just complicated

Tell us more about your prowess in the fields of finance and macroeconomics. As I recall you bailed on me as I began to school you on how government enables wealth.

Ps. I like your posting.

 

[Pwent]

Tell us more about your prowess in the fields of finance and macroeconomics. As I recall you bailed on me as I began to school you on how government enables wealth.

Ps. I like your posting.

Absent a government, theoretically a poor person could gain wealth by avoiding those with the power to take it away

If 10 poor people were stranded on an island with no government they could manage a wealth of resources

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Absent a government, theoretically a poor person could gain wealth by avoiding those with the power to take it away

If 10 poor people were stranded on an island with no government they could manage a wealth of resources

What wealth is that absent society? You seem to be talking some chump with extra coconuts. I'm talking the existence of people like Gates and Zuckerberg. Tell me how rich this guy below was on your island scenario. I was pretty young, but what I learned is he didn't mean shit without society at his back.

Wouldn't have taken much for Skipper to claim that teddy for himself. Then what?

 

[Pwent]

What wealth is that absent society? You seem to be talking some chump with extra coconuts. I'm talking the existence of people like Gates and Zuckerberg. Tell me how rich this guy below was on your island scenario. I was pretty young, but what I learned is he didn't mean shit without society at his back.

Wouldn't have taken much for Skipper to claim that teddy for himself. Then what?

wealth
welTH/
noun

1. an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

having an abundance of coconuts or having a larger hut than your neighbor would make you wealthier.

I was responding in your hypothetical extreme "people cant build wealth without government" or whatver phraseology you used.

the question wasnt "how can you become one of the richest men in the world without the government protecting your property"

bill gates and mark zuckerberg got rich through countless consensual transactions. they created a product/service that they can deliver for a very low cost to many people.

it would not be hard to imagine doing a similar thing without the governments help

but all of this is outside the original argument that jack made, that poor people cant move up the ladder without the government redistributing wealth downwards. the two examples you gave, gates and zuckerberg managed it, without the government forcefully redistributing money to them

 

[VivaRevolution]

Isn't "good content" just another form of "people I agree with"? Tons of people support their views with sourced materials. Are you talking about backing up opinions with facts or addressing topics you feel are more worthy of discussion? Something else?

Something else. He has posted a number of stories on a single issue that I think offered a similar slant that I disagreed with. What he gets credit for with me, is the quality of the arguments and reporting he presents.

His Venezuela thread is a good example of this for me. I think arkane doesn't give enough credit to our meddling in Venezuela's coming collapse. With that said, the stuff he posts goes deeper than talking points.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

wealth
welTH/
noun

1. an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

having an abundance of coconuts or having a larger hut than your neighbor would make you wealthier.

I was responding in your hypothetical extreme "people cant build wealth without government" or whatver phraseology you used.

the question wasnt "how can you become one of the richest men in the world without the government protecting your property"

bill gates and mark zuckerberg got rich through countless consensual transactions. they created a product/service that they can deliver for a very low cost to many people.

it would not be hard to imagine doing a similar thing without the governments help

but all of this is outside the original argument that jack made, that poor people cant move up the ladder without the government redistributing wealth downwards. the two examples you gave, gates and zuckerberg managed it, without the government forcefully redistributing money to them

Tough to build wealth with perishable items like coconuts, don't you think? And having two fishing poles vs. one while living in some Amazon village never before seen by civilization isn't (for the purposes of this discussion) wealth. Turning this into some dumb semantic debate hardly makes you an intellectual titan of the WR.

Now moving on, those men got rich through government protections. Let's call them patents and copyrights. They also hold their wealth through the establishment of laws against theft and the societal funding of enforcement of such laws. If you refuse to acknowledge those facts then you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Pwent]

Tough to build wealth with perishable items like coconuts, don't you think? And having two fishing poles vs. one while living in some Amazon village never before seen by civilization isn't (for the purposes of this discussion) wealth. Turning this into some dumb semantic debate hardly makes you an intellectual titan of the WR.

Now moving on, those men got rich through government protections. Let's call them patents and copyrights. They also hold their wealth through the establishment of laws against theft and the societal funding of enforcement of such laws. If you refuse to acknowledge those facts then you're being deliberately obtuse.

hard to have a discussion if you dont define the terms before hand and then change them afterwards. the question was whether the government enables the accumulation of wealth

its not hard to imagine a rothbardian society where people accumulate wealth

im aware that gates and zuckerberg had protection of their intellectual property, which is why i added "it would not be hard to imagine doing a similar thing without the governments help"

i used them as an example because you brought them up. if you would like to look at other examples, you could look at how al capone, pablo escobar and el chapo became wealthy. you could argue that they benefited from government-caused scarcity, but they managed to create a product, deliver it to the consumer, receive payment, then protect their wealth from theft through private protection paid through their own profits. they definitely did not become wealthy because of socialist redistribution, which was the original argument

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Something else. He has posted a number of stories on a single issue that I think offered a similar slant that I disagreed with. What he gets credit for with me, is the quality of the arguments and reporting he presents.

His Venezuela thread is a good example of this for me. I think arkane doesn't give enough credit to our meddling in Venezuela's coming collapse. With that said, the stuff he posts goes deeper than talking points.

Sure. I agree he's very good in many respects. But if the content bores me (i.e. Venezuela) then what? At some point I think it's the subject matter attracting you as well. So at then it becomes a matter of topics you like.

Drive it home for me though. Pick one of my threads and (within it) tell me how the OP and subsequent discussion I engage in comes up short. I'd appreciate the learning experience since my threads generate jack and shit for traffic.

 

[Overtures]

LOL! Really? Really...? You can't understand one bit why @Jack V Savage would get shit from other posters, especially from the right? Jesus. You literally quoted him saying that the right is angry and the left are all normal people. I mean, the left isn't driven by anger? Antifa anyone? Or how about on page 1 of this thread



He's talking shit because this thread was started by a right leaning poster. Or how about @Trotsky the other day wishing Ben Shapiro dies from cancer because he disagrees with his politics.



That's NOT ANGRY!? HAha. You see posts like this all the time in the war room yet the right is hateful and driven by fear? Give me a fucking break. Both parties are the same, just on different ends of the spectrum.

In other words, the reason why Jack gets shit on is because he's full of shit. He's also not as smart as he thinks he is. If you look at his posts, he's one of those quantity over quality posters. He'll always type up these long posts to try to be perceived like he's smart but in reality 95% of his post is baseless bullshit drivel and only 5% is a thoughtful argument. He's also a better manipulator than he is a decent arguer. Whenever he gets backed up into a corner (which happens a lot) he'll try to deflect and change the argument to try to act like you're the one who is in the wrong. Moving the goal posts is one of his best moves when he's losing an argument. Oh not to mention he'll throw in personal insults when he's getting beat down by someone in a thread. He's also extremely biased yet is unwilling to admit it. I mean he says the right is angry and the left isn't, then goes to list all these posters he likes and ironically they are all left leaning posters.

He also has an absolute shitty sense of humor. His jokes are fucking terrible and you can tell he doesn't laugh at lot in real life. He'd be so fucking boring to hang out with. It would be like watching a retard trying to play patty cake.

@KONE @lecter @ripskater @Pwent @Devout Pessimist @GearSolidMetal @Dr J @Slippery Kantus @klnOmega @RhinoRush can all agree with this sentiment. Because we see it from another perspective. Jack's perspective is that he's 100% right the left is 100% correct and everything else is wrong.

Next time just say Jack Savage is a left wing pussy and you agree with him because of it. Thanks.

I think @Jack V Savage is a bit smug and I think that he does shift the focus of his argument to avoid conceding certain points, but he definitely has a way more subtle read on politics than literally every minion you tagged. And he definitely has a background that gives him authority on certain political/fiscal issues where your minions have none.

Which is all to say, you guys hate him because A) he's liberal, and B) because you're insecure.