Social WR Lounge v 236 Who dropped the ball here?

Favorite Dr Seuss book

  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Diplomat said:
Jeez @Jack V Savage, calm down. Last thing we need is a wannabe Samoan to get a big head.
Click to expand...

Look at the chain. Cubo just melting down with almost no provocation. Sad story, really. I think he thinks of himself as a pretty serious thinker, but he can't help but make a fool of himself. Wai was also sort of similar (legitimately pretty bright, though). He didn't want to be the tallest person at the kids table, but he also didn't know how to behave in such a way as to be invited to the grown-ups table.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Of course you didn't honor the bet. The whole point was that the person who was wrong would admit it and the argument would be permanently settled. But you're still arguing about it. I didn't melt down in any thread. I just pointed out that you were intentionally (at least post-correction) misrepresenting my position--lying, in other words. Still don't know how you justify that to yourself and continue ... posting. I haven't lied about anything.



Like I said. You want to be respected by a totally different batch of posters than the ones who actually do.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking stupid? You're clearly not on my level.

The best was I said charges would be filed and you said they wouldn't. The loser had to admit they were wrong. Ya dumb fuckin' cunt. I lost and admitted I was wrong. That you read something into it that wasn't there just makes you the fool, not me dishonorable.

As for Warren, we can pull that thread up and do a debate, using only quotes within it. But you won't, because I reamed your ass in that thread.

Limbo Pete said:
I demand a nomination for this next War Room Awards
Click to expand...

If only there were someone to compete, with Pete.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Look at the chain. Cubo just melting down with almost no provocation. Sad story, really. I think he thinks of himself as a pretty serious thinker, but he can't help but make a fool of himself. Wai was also sort of similar (legitimately pretty bright, though). He didn't want to be the tallest person at the kids table, but he also didn't know how to behave in such a way as to be invited to the grown-ups table.
Click to expand...
I think you all have your moments, but you just had heated debates with 3 separate people, two of whom is on your side. I mean, it's damn good practice, but what's the point?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Are you fucking stupid? You're clearly not on my level.

The best was I said charges would be filed and you said they wouldn't. The loser had to admit they were wrong. Ya dumb fuckin' cunt. I lost and admitted I was wrong. That you read something into it that wasn't there just makes you the fool, not me dishonorable.

As for Warren, we can pull that thread up and do a debate, using only quotes within it. But you won't, because I reamed your ass in that thread.



If only there were someone to compete, with Pete.
Click to expand...
...And don't you tease me, now. I'm gonna hold you to this.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Are you fucking stupid? You're clearly not on my level.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Cubo, you're so brilliant and I'm so not.

The best was I said charges would be filed and you said they wouldn't. The loser had to admit they were wrong. Ya dumb fuckin' cunt. I lost and admitted I was wrong. That you read something into it that wasn't there just makes you the fool, not me dishonorable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you've taken this approach before. I'm a sucker for having trusted you, you're not dishonest. It's not the way an honorable man would defend himself.

As for Warren, we can pull that thread up and do a debate, using only quotes within it. But you won't, because I reamed your ass in that thread.
Click to expand...

:) Sure, Cubo. I'm pointing out how you deliberately misstated my view. You clumsily tried to make a syllogism, and I pointed out that two statements you said I believed were equivalent were actually two parts of the same whole (not equivalent). And you insisted on misrepresenting my position. It's embarrassing that you pat yourself on the back about that.
 
The Diplomat said:
I think you all have your moments, but you just had heated debates with 3 separate people, two of which is on your side. I mean, it's damn good practice, but what's the point?
Click to expand...

My "side" is reason. Didn't think two of them were that heated anyway. And Cubo's just a bitter loser in general. He wakes up heated.
 
Jack V Savage said:
My "side" is reason. Didn't think two of them were that heated anyway. And Cubo's just a bitter loser in general. He wakes up heated.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he'd be useful in the winter.

Regardless, just sayin'. Hope you're having a good week, Jackovich.
 
Andy Capp said:
I gave you a like because I agree we should do no such thing, but I'm going to need you to start qualifying your use of progressives or I will have to accuse you of doing the same thing as others when they use the term leftist as a general-use epithet.
Click to expand...
True Progressives are people who think poor people should be able to earn a living wage and that the child tax credit shouldn't be used to get tattoos.

So not people like this:
ghzs74.gif
 
Aren't "true progressives" basically the "I want the kind of communism that's been said in my dreams" types? I mean, progressivism has been different throughout the eras. Teddy was a real progressive in 1900, but would be considered a dogshit racist now. What does actual "true" progressiveness mean in 2021? Health care for all? Okay, cool, what does that mean? The basic minimal, or is a private option always there? Free college? Well, goodbye institutions and innovation through science and historical research. Unlimited immigration? Huh....
 
Jack V Savage said:
The term is broader, but, yeah, that was a dig at a position that the woman advanced that was similar to one that Anung defended (and that you kinda agreed with? You seemed to support and disavow, like maybe you thought it was reasonable but not necessarily good). I see it a lot locally (not to that extreme degree, of course), but on a national level, I don't. But I tend to suspect that national True Progressives are somewhat like the ones around here.

Again, I think that market-oriented liberals are strong supporters of cash now, which likely is a change, driven by research. To the extent that I see that from mainstream liberals, I also disagree with it. Matt Bruenig (unlike his wife) is somewhat I respect a lot despite being a True Progressive (and generally a dick) and who does a good job calling that kind of thing out.



I think there's a sense that "neoliberals" (like right-wing libertarians plus left-wing liberals) love austerity, so anything "neoliberals" like is austerity.
Click to expand...

On Anung's position (I still don't really know what it was, as neither of you have provided me the quoted post), my position continues to be that he was wrong and his reservations were counterproductive but that it's not irrational or illogical to attach conditions to government entitlements and not to market income. Later in our exchange, I believe that you clarified that you were not talking about all government entitlements (such as ones earmarked for specific expenditures by recipients) but rather cash payments meant as stimulus or supplemental income. With that clarification, I agree. However, to provide a for-instance, if the voting public were specifically worried about a single issue and were hesitant to allot entitlements for fear that they would not address that issue (housing payments, for instance), I don't think it's unreasonable to attach conditions onto those entitlements that they be spent toward that purpose just because persons derive market income that isn't conditional on any public purpose. Like I said, that's democracy. And democratic initiatives come through politics.

On your argument about "market-oriented liberals," I would agree that most self-identified liberals favor cash payouts without any stipulations. I would also forecast that self-identified progressives favor it at a higher percentage than liberals. When you see hand-wringing about frivolity and means-testing, it's coming from persons like Mark Warner, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema....and it's being most vocally opposed by persons like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Jamaal Bowman. Just like the ACA was kept to the strictest market conditions by centrists liberals like Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman who opposed the public option, not progressives like Bernie Sanders who supported it and more. So it's strange to say "conservatives and progressives are worried about the poors being reckless." It's a nonsensical leftward punch that conspicuously mentions one group without mentioning another to which the criticism applies to a greater degree.

In re neoliberals/neoliberalism, it's a loaded term. If you, for instance, talk to someone from India about what "neoliberal" means, their concept is much clearer because the effects of neoliberalism (lowered trade and investment barriers, dismantling of labor union power, relaxed regulations on wages and profits, privatization of public services, sturdy presumptions against economic and industrial regulation generally) were much more tangible than in the United States. Here, where the neoliberal order didn't have impacts of the same magnitude and where "liberal" has its own rigid partisan meaning, it's more opaque. Persons on the left tend to apply it to New Democrat types that largely abandoned class politics rhetoric, are supportive of free trade policies (something I've softened on quite a bit tbh), and, yes, worry about issues of receding market logic (removing [dis]incentives from healthcare usage, removing [dis]incentives from borrowing loans [see DWS on payday loan reform in Florida], removing incentives to work by failing to properly condition welfare payments, etc.).

Anyways, can't speak to how wide-ranging the definition of "austerity" should be. I think it's typically used to describe any policy initiatives that seeks to lower public spending in a way that adversely affects the lower classes, rather than increase taxes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,501
Messages
58,290,042
Members
175,996
Latest member
blainepsychiatry

Share this page

Back
Top