The War Room Lounge 158: In Ben Shapiro's Bed, No One Can Hear You Scream

[Falsedawn]

Kafir itt

His hands are rated E for everyone.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Now, that is news, and sad. RIP.

He’s not dead lol. Just caught it. And I tried and failed a few times to make a whitty “covid awarded gold medal for catching Usain Bolt” joke that didn’t suck, and ended up just making a plain post

 

[Andy Capp]

By all the metrics @Kafir-kun is considering, America is the greatest country on earth. If you consider an axis, and fix a direction in which more of that quantity is ''better'' America probably has the #1 position on more of those axes than any other country. In fact, if #1 at something were one of those axes, America would probably be #1.

However, America is just about the last developed country that I'd actually want to live in. I'd rather live there than the fucking Netherlands though.

I'd rather live right here in Canada than either of them. I won't even step foot in the US right now.

 

[Prokofievian]

I think that's one to be really proud of. We're also No. 1 in the most-important category: Our baseball leagues are the best, by far. The best players come from all over the world, but they play in America.

<{cruzshake}>

 

[Andy Capp]

He’s not dead lol. Just caught it. And I tried and failed a few times to make a whitty “covid awarded gold medal for catching Usain Bolt” joke that didn’t suck, and ended up just making a plain post

How about:

Usain Bolt is so fast he even caught COVID.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

A housecat isn't morally superior to a tiger because it doesn't kill you, though. Considering the power the U.S. has, it's used it pretty well.

You think these were good uses of power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

But the house cat-tiger analogy is faulty because the tiger can't help being a tiger. He didn't choose to be one, neither did the house cat. They're driven by the size, genetics, and instinct that nature gave them.

The US set out to be a tiger from the very beginning. It didn't stumble upon its great power but was purposely predatory and expansionist from colonial times. And of course, it's not some inescapable instinct that causes them to act the way they do internationally. It's a product of political decisions by its leaders.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You think these were good uses of power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

But the house cat-tiger analogy is faulty because the tiger can't help being a tiger. He didn't choose to be one, neither did the house cat. They're driven by the size, genetics, and instinct that nature gave them.

The US set out to be a tiger from the very beginning. It didn't stumble upon its great power but was purposely predatory and expansionist from colonial times. And of course, it's not some inescapable instinct that causes them to act the way they do internationally. It's a product of political decisions by its leaders.

I don't think that every use of power by America has been good, or even most. But if the standard is how other great powers throughout history have wielded power (mostly in horrifying ways), we look extremely good, though.

The point of the analogy is that powerless is not virtue.

 

[Gregolian]

This show has some under-rated humor in it.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

How much $$$ a year would you have to earn for living in the US to be advantageous compared to Canada or Western Europe?

 

[Falsedawn]

How much $$$ a year would you have to earn for living in the US to be advantageous compared to Canada or Western Europe?

What part?

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

You think these were good uses of power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

But the house cat-tiger analogy is faulty because the tiger can't help being a tiger. He didn't choose to be one, neither did the house cat. They're driven by the size, genetics, and instinct that nature gave them.

The US set out to be a tiger from the very beginning. It didn't stumble upon its great power but was purposely predatory and expansionist from colonial times. And of course, it's not some inescapable instinct that causes them to act the way they do internationally. It's a product of political decisions by its leaders.

But every house cat has those same instincts, they just can’t act on them. They didn’t have the opportunities that colonial America had. The human desire for power and wealth isn’t some “inescapable instinct“ on a macro level? You sure?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

What part?

That's a good question.....

Let's go with Houston

 

[Islam Imamate]

Still unapologetic? After I dismantled the entire post?

Reasonable does not equal objective either. My criteria were perfectly reasonable to me as well, as @Trotsky appears to have affirmed.

I think my criteria was more well rounded, the only thing people have put forth in response is average standard of living which is something but America is just #1 at so many other things. Like I said no nation on earth comes close to our towering influence in so many fields, we're really unparalleled.

I have a different opinion than you about how to be patriotic so I have no love for my country or community? Ugh.

I mean you did come off as anti-nationalist with that statement about how people shouldn't pat themselves on the back for where they're born. I get that that doesn't necessarily mean one can't have love of one's nation but it did suggest that kind of left anti-nationalism. But sure I made quite the leap there.

And your last paragraph is just more of the same terribly flawed logic and presumption about my beliefs based upon them. My reasons for not having kids has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment, it's just one of the many elements to all the pluses and minuses about having kids, and I said so in the previous post to this. People who think they're doing their part for the environment by choosing not to have kids are allowed (though I never included myself among them so again that's fucked anyway). That doesn't make them misanthropic any more than a woman who never tries to have children because of the effect it might have on her career. Your first three sentences imply that despite denying it in my post, you still think I'm one of these so called misanthropic environmentalists, so it's not at all a simple question in your last sentence, is it?

Oh I wasn't applying that to you necessarily, I was just explaining what I mean by misanthropic environmentalism. I did before but I retract that here. I highly doubt you sat down with your wife and said "honey I'd love to have kids but think of the environment", figured you just didn't want em.

People are free to think that way just like people are free to believe the earth is flat. They're both wrong though. Tbh I don't believe anyone really makes a decision on whether or not to have kids based on the environment, people who pretend to are those who already didn't want kids and are justifying it with some pretend high minded ideal.

The question should be whether I think I'm special for the sole reason of thinking I have a smaller environmental footprint due to having no kids, whether I do in fact or not. But that's not what you asked, is it? Wake the fuck up and use your head for more than a hatrack. The question is even independent of whether I have kids because it's about my beliefs.

I asked that question to drive the point home that overpopulation isn't really an environmental concern, excess consumption is. Doesn't have to be you in particular, applies just as much to me and everyone on the forum since virtually anyone with a computer has a greater enviromental impact than an Amish family.

I kind of pissed at this point because even after I refuted your ridiculous accusations based on horribly flawed reasoning, you persist in saying you think that's what I'm like. You really should just fuck off now.

Aww man, alright I'm sorry. I'll admit, I was being a cunt and came at you out of nowhere. I kind of did project a bit onto you, I mean how can I really know? You seem like a nice guy, probably a good neighbor and stuff. So sorry buddeh

On average it doesn't, but for the middle and upper-middle class, it's incredible. The giant inequality is what drags down the overall average. So I'd rather be poor anywhere else in the developed world than in East St. Louis. And they come here because of the massive resources the US has.

I just think "greatness" has to have a moral component to it and that's where the US falls woefully short. Its treatment of its lower classes is pretty bad, but the violence it has sponsored on the rest of the world since WWII is absolutely disqualifying. Its incredible wastefulness is also contributing to environmental catastrophe. Can a country so destructive really be the greatest??

Most powerful? Yes. Most dominant? Yes. Greatest? Not so sure...

Well like I said earlier they call him Alexander the Great but it ain't because he was a nice guy.

 

[Falsedawn]

That's a good question.....

Let's go with Houston

Median family income is $76,000 so that's probably the baseline i'd go by.

Single, you could probably be living advantageously with 60k. If you're clearing 100k, you're living very comfortably.

Family, assuming 2 kids, i'd probably say $100k for an advantageous life, $140k for comfortable.

 

[Andy Capp]

Oh good Jesus fuck.

I still think giving us recurring stimulus of $1000 a month for everyone that makes less than say... 80k as an individual or 140k as a joint filer (just pulling numbers from thin air for an example) until March with a requirement they revisit it in January is the way they should have gone back in like May.

Having recurring payments are easier to budget for than one time payments that are piece-meal. As an example it sucked to pay it but my $500 a month truck payment every month is easier to budget around than suddenly having to spend $800 on say new tires unexpectedly. I gotta imagine the same has to be said of the Federal Government's books.

HELL, they're the ones that had the Navy buy hammers at $300 a piece to use up the last of their budget so they wouldn't lose it one year.

Greg, please clarify. On one hand you seem to be saying a lump sum payment makes more sense but at the same saying a recurring amount is easier for you. What am I missing?

But yeah, this friend who is much smarter than me explained all about their ridiculous zero-based budgeting* way back when we were in university, so, like, the Jurassic period, basically. I haven't thought about the subject much since then but every now and then I wonder whether the practice persists anywhere in the US or Canada. Regardless, what a perfect way to ensure huge amounts of government waste, innit?


*just FYI for whomever:
What Is Zero-Based Budgeting?
"Simply put, zero-based budgeting is when all your income minus all your expenses equals zero.

This means that all the money going out should be the same amount as the money coming in. So if you make $4,000 a month, you’re giving all $4,000 a job: paying bills, saving money, paying off debt, and living life! When you add in every source of income and then subtract every single expense, your budget should end up at zero."

But this likely quite good financial advice is written for the consumer. For a government department, substitute funding appropriation for term income. The issue arises when the amount your department gets depends mostly upon how much you spent the prior year, which leads to the $300 hammer, for example. If you don't spend everything you get your budget gets cut. Seems like they could have spotted the flaw in this system before it got so bad the issue became public.

 

[Shoemaker]

His argument for why I'm some sort of asshole for inserting a dig about the "'Murica is the greatest country on Earth, yesireeee, weehaw!" types is predicated on that assertion being objectively true, according to his own words. That argument dissolves if it's not an objective conclusion.

Ah you're correct. @Kafir-kun said it wasn't very subjective.

 

[Gregolian]

Greg, please clarify. On one hand you seem to be saying a lump sum payment makes more sense but at the same saying a recurring amount is easier for you. What am I missing?

But yeah, this friend who is much smarter than me explained all about their ridiculous zero-based budgeting* way back when we were in university, so, like, the Jurassic period, basically. I haven't thought about the subject much since then but every now and then I wonder whether the practice persists anywhere in the US or Canada. Regardless, what a perfect way to ensure huge amounts of waste, innit?


*just FYI for whomever:
What Is Zero-Based Budgeting?
"Simply put, zero-based budgeting is when all your income minus all your expenses equals zero.

This means that all the money going out should be the same amount as the money coming in. So if you make $4,000 a month, you’re giving all $4,000 a job: paying bills, saving money, paying off debt, and living life! When you add in every source of income and then subtract every single expense, your budget should end up at zero."

But this likely quite good financial advice is written for the consumer. For a government department, substitute funding appropriation for term. The issue arises when the amount your department gets depends mostly upon how much you spent the prior year, which leads to the $300 hammer, for example. If you don't spend everything you get your budget gets cut. Seems like they could have spotted the flaw in this system before it got so bad the issue became public.

I am of the opinion that the feds should have recurring payments. Now whether that is a flat $1000 or like $1200 per person based on tax information and shit OR if they go the 80% of your salary I am not sure what is best. I just know having payments be recurring is easier to budget for than randomly with no real rhyme or reason sending payments out irregularly like they are doing right now.

 

[Shoemaker]

Greg, please clarify. On one hand you seem to be saying a lump sum payment makes more sense but at the same saying a recurring amount is easier for you. What am I missing?

But yeah, this friend who is much smarter than me explained all about their ridiculous zero-based budgeting* way back when we were in university, so, like, the Jurassic period, basically. I haven't thought about the subject much since then but every now and then I wonder whether the practice persists anywhere in the US or Canada. Regardless, what a perfect way to ensure huge amounts of waste, innit?


*just FYI for whomever:
What Is Zero-Based Budgeting?
"Simply put, zero-based budgeting is when all your income minus all your expenses equals zero.

This means that all the money going out should be the same amount as the money coming in. So if you make $4,000 a month, you’re giving all $4,000 a job: paying bills, saving money, paying off debt, and living life! When you add in every source of income and then subtract every single expense, your budget should end up at zero."

But this likely quite good financial advice is written for the consumer. For a government department, substitute funding appropriation for term. The issue arises when the amount your department gets depends mostly upon how much you spent the prior year, which leads to the $300 hammer, for example. If you don't spend everything you get your budget gets cut. Seems like they could have spotted the flaw in this system before it got so bad the issue became public.

I read "first baby steps" in there an immediately thought they stole it from Dave Ramsey. Then I looked at the logo lol.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Burger King has to go by the name Hungry Jack's there because they a local shop already had the Trademark

Target face planted in Canada about six years ago , they opened stores coast to coast and just died

Kafir itt

I like how he's rolled up his pant leg , ready to rock

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ah you're correct. @Kafir-kun said it wasn't very subjective.

Yeah I was overselling but idk, while its not objective to me its the obvious answer. I don't see a competitor. Norway is a great place to live but it just doesn't have the same reach and influence that the US does, not even close.

Kafir itt

UFC FLW champ by 2035, mark my words.