War Room OT Discussion v3

[Pickle Rick]

The past few months, I've been thinking this too and then this fight happens. I get why he can't be ranked over Ferguson right now but out of those two and Conor, it's hard to not believe Khabib is a notch above those guys. The UFC is fucked if they don't give us at least 2 match ups of those three fighters in 2018. That division is the best of them all right now cause of those three guys.

Khabib said it in his post fight

Ferguson is the champ in his op conor is just a joke atm ... i wouldn't be surprised is Conor hears that and pride comes a knocking and he decides he wants to prove he's there best (he isn't khabib will murk him) either way khabib wins both fights

 

[Lead]

Khabib said it in his post fight

Ferguson is the champ in his op conor is just a joke atm ... i wouldn't be surprised is Conor hears that and pride comes a knocking and he decides he wants to prove he's there best (he isn't khabib will murk him) either way khabib wins both fights

The way it worked out is actually better imo because I much rather see Conor v. Ferguson and Khabib v. Ferguson. I would like to see Khabib v. Conor but far less so than the other two match ups and I also think it's far less likely to even happen.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

@Fawlty The new Chapelle specials on Netflix are great

 

[Fawlty]

@Fawlty The new Chapelle specials on Netflix are great

Saw a couple hours worth last night. One was hilarious and the other was really different, but interesting. I like where he's at right now.

 

[Fawlty]

@Fawlty The new Chapelle specials on Netflix are great

His story about his son meeting Kevin Hart is brilliant

 

[Higus]

Saw him at a show a couple years ago. He probably smoked a whole pack in about an hour of standup. The whole theater smelled like an ashtray by the end. Crazy what it's done to his vocal chords.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@waiguoren, you were disputing my claim that the NY Times has a clear right-wing bias on economic issues. Here's a good example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/...ation-economic-growth.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

WASHINGTON — A wave of optimism has swept over American business leaders, and it is beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.

While business leaders are eager for the tax cuts that take effect this year, the newfound confidence was initially inspired by the Trump administration’s regulatory pullback, not so much because deregulation is saving companies money but because the administration has instilled a faith in business executives that new regulations are not coming.

That's the first two paragraphs. Then later, they get honest:

There is little historical evidence tying regulation levels to growth. Regulatory proponents say, in fact, that those rules can have positive economic effects in the long run, saving companies from violations that could cost them both financially and reputationally. Cost-benefit analyses generally do not look just at the impact of a regulation on a particular business’s bottom line in the coming months, but at the broader impact on consumers, the environment, public health and other factors that can show up over years or decades.

Then there's a "but," and it goes on with the biased slobbering. Later still, they introduce some sanity, but it's still just little bits undercutting the main piece. It would be one thing if there were evidence to suggest that deregulation spurred growth, but as is, it's an assumption that flies in the face of historical observations and has no good logic behind it. Pure bias.

 

[waiguoren]

@waiguoren, you were disputing my claim that the NY Times has a clear right-wing bias on economic issues. Here's a good example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/...ation-economic-growth.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0



That's the first two paragraphs. Then later, they get honest:



Then there's a "but," and it goes on with the biased slobbering. Later still, they introduce some sanity, but it's still just little bits undercutting the main piece. It would be one thing if there were evidence to suggest that deregulation spurred growth, but as is, it's an assumption that flies in the face of historical observations and has no good logic behind it. Pure bias.

I don't think those two paragraphs are mutually contradictory.

The first paragraph says: business leaders believe new regulations are not coming--->business leaders are more optimistic than usual->businesses are investing more than usual, driving economic growth


Only the first sentence of the second paragraph is relevant. It's vague: There is little historical evidence tying regulation levels to growth.

I took this to mean that regulations themselves have not been shown to retard growth. But that says nothing of the psychological effect mentioned in the first paragraph.

I used to teach macroeconomics. This reminds me of the confusion that many economics students have when learning about inflation vs. expected inflation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think those two paragraphs are mutually contradictory.

That's fine, but the story as a whole is expressing a completely unjustified optimism about deregulation, which indicates clear bias. That was the point.

 

[waiguoren]

That's fine, but the story as a whole is expressing a completely unjustified optimism about deregulation, which indicates clear bias. That was the point.

The article seems to be about business confidence growing because businesses don't expect new regulations. The title, first two paragraphs and final two paragraphs make that clear. Whether this narrative is true is a separate question from whether or not regulation is bad for business. Can you point out the bias? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The article seems to be about business confidence growing because businesses don't expect new regulations. The title, first two paragraphs and final two paragraphs make that clear. Whether this narrative is true is a separate question from whether or not regulation is bad for business. Can you point out the bias? I'm not seeing it.

I think you're playing dumb, to be honest. Deregulation can't be shown to have the impact that they're asserting, which they acknowledge but downplay. Someone reading that article who didn't bring prior knowledge or wasn't reading extremely carefully would come away with expectations for deregulation that will almost certainly be wrong. At the very least, that particular piece (which was in the news section) indicates a right-wing bias by the paper.

 

[waiguoren]

I think you're playing dumb, to be honest. Deregulation can't be shown to have the impact that they're asserting, which they acknowledge but downplay. Someone reading that article who didn't bring prior knowledge or wasn't reading extremely carefully would come away with expectations for deregulation that will almost certainly be wrong. At the very least, that particular piece (which was in the news section) indicates a right-wing bias by the paper.

Dude, you tag me to get my opinion on something, then start calling names when I give you my opinion. Chill?

I just don't see it the way you do. If one wants to write an article about why business spending is up significantly under Trump, then the core of the article should be about the psychology of the businesspeople making these decisions. The possibility that this psychology is irrational is the sort of thing a paper with a left-wing bias would throw in to show tribal allegiance with their teammates, but to make it the centerpiece of the article would be bad journalism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Dude, you tag me to get my opinion on something, then start calling names when I give you my opinion. Chill?

I'm not calling you names. "Playing dumb" means pretending not to understand something that you do understand. That's the second time you made a mistake like that. Could be a result of living away from the country?

 

[waiguoren]

I'm not calling you names. "Playing dumb" means pretending not to understand something that you do understand. That's the second time you made a mistake like that. Could be a result of living away from the country?

What was the first?

Regarding your difficulty in opening your mind and seeing issues from other perspectives: could it be the result of living in the same country for so long, failing to get out and see the world?

 

[JonesBones]

 

[Anung Un Rama]

 

[Fawlty]

So, save the kiddy potty stool?

 

[JonesBones]

So, save the kiddy potty stool?

My parents have one in their bathroom and I didnt even't want to ask what it was for. I don't even want to know. lol. But that is the natural way of shitting. Squatting. Not sitting on something with a hole in it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Stick to stock tips.

 

[waiguoren]

Dude, just lift up the seat stand on the rim of the toilet, and squat. Not embarrassed to say I've been doing it for years. No need to buy some overpriced junk to clutter up your house even more.

Real shitting for real men in the 21st century.