|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
you would think a spox for tax reform would be careful never to use the words ‘trickle down’
|
|
|
On November 10 2017 04:21 Nevuk wrote:
Also, Roy Moore is being accused by 4 women of him going after them as teens. Not looking good for him. (Brietbart's defense practically seems like it was written by Milo, so not very good)
Luther Strange's oppo team must have been asleep at the wheel or something. How do you miss that your bible thumping opponent diddles kids?
|
On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now.
The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about.
|
|
|
On November 10 2017 04:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Luther Strange's oppo team must have been asleep at the wheel or something. How do you miss that your bible thumping opponent diddles kids?
Could be this whole Harvey W thing killing Hollywood is inspiring women to come out now.
|
That and be honest that could be any Evangelical in this country.
|
On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about.
I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you.
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about.
You've been insisting upon having an argument about whether DC benefits from Federal dollars (it does, lots of places do) rather than addressing the actual point of contention, why benefiting from Federal dollars makes you unsympathetic to the disenfranchisement of the people there.
It's not the first part people are upset about, it's the second part. The part you refuse to talk about.
|
United States43565 Posts
It's interesting how they argue simultaneously that the claims are politically motivated lies because he's a public figure in an election, and that he's fought a series of high profile elections and that if there was any truth to the claims then they would have in a previous election.
For the claim to be truthful it had to have been made in an election season, but no claim made in an election season could be truthful.
|
On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you.
Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other.
But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues?
|
On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues?
Outrage is plentiful for Kaepernick though
|
On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues?
What are the relevant issues? Because the only issue to me appears to be that 700,000 people - which is 1% of the black vote in the whole country - do not get represented federally. Regardless of whether it's minor or not, would you not agree that is wrong?
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues?
It wasn't previously clear that you were tightly rationing your opinions in order of outrage to preserve outrage stocks. I'm not sure why saying "it's bad that they don't have the vote" would deplete your outrage reserves but you're assuring us it will so I guess we'll have to take your word for it.
One thing I am looking forward to is knowing that you're carefully choosing your future statements of outrage in accordance with this rationing system. It's good to know that the benchmark of 700,000 disenfranchised Americans is established as beneath your outrage threshold. That way we know that whatever thing does outrage you next is more important to you than voting rights. It'll be interesting to see how you enact this new policy going forwards.
|
On November 10 2017 04:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues? Outrage is plentiful for Kaepernick though
I'm not outraged by what Kaepernick is doing. I just think that he's a moron. There's a difference.
|
Classic Xdaunt:
Step 1: make slightly outlandish claim about a pretty straight forward issue
Step 2: respond to critics and questions by doubling down, explaining nothing and not addressing anything
Step 3: tell everyone they are stupid and don’t understand
Step 4: Double down on the everyone is stupid theory
Step 5: leave is a huff. Repeat step 1 in about 2-4 weeks.
|
United States43565 Posts
On November 10 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
Classic Xdaunt:
Step 1: make slightly outlandish claim about a pretty straight forward issue
Step 2: respond to critics and questions by doubling down, explaining nothing and not addressing anything
Step 3: tell everyone they are stupid and don’t understand
Step 4: Double down on the everyone is stupid theory
Step 5: leave is a huff. Repeat step 1 in about 2-4 weeks.
I particularly liked that he's moved to "it's not that I don't care about voting rights because I don't think they're important, it's that I can only care about so many things and they didn't make the cutoff, I'd absolutely care about them if I had more caring bandwidth but I just don't, and that's no-ones fault". It's an amazingly ambitious lie, and one that if he wants to maintain will require him to make a list of all of the things he cares about, rank them, and then from now on exclusively post about the ones above DC disenfranchisement.
Obviously he won't do that, he's never previously made much of an effort to follow through on his lies. But still, you've got to admire the boldness. The bravery of a man who has jumped off a ledge believing he's able to fly a dozen times before and is willing to get back up and give it one more shot.
|
On November 10 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues? What are the relevant issues? Because the only issue to me appears to be that 700,000 people - which is 1% of the black vote in the whole country - do not get represented federally. Regardless of whether it's minor or not, would you not agree that is wrong?
First, the racial component is irrelevant, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up unless you think that white people have less of a right to representation. Second, and given the unique space that DC occupies, I'm not prepared to say that the federal disenfranchisement of persons in DC is categorically "wrong." And to the extent that it is, we're talking only talking a "wrong" in the sense of being a 1 on a scale of 10.
|
On November 10 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues? What are the relevant issues? Because the only issue to me appears to be that 700,000 people - which is 1% of the black vote in the whole country - do not get represented federally. Regardless of whether it's minor or not, would you not agree that is wrong? First, the racial component is irrelevant, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up unless you think that white people have less of a right to representation. Second, and given the unique space that DC occupies, I'm not prepared to say that the federal disenfranchisement of persons in DC is categorically "wrong." And to the extent that it is, we're talking only talking a "wrong" in the sense of being a 1 on a scale of 10.
Hm, so the US had no reason to rebel against Britain?
|
On November 10 2017 04:53 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:30 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 03:18 Velr wrote:
So the federal goverment giving out contracts to private entities is somehow worse than private to private exchanges.
Might I ask why and why it is a good reason to strip 700'000 people from voting? I didn't say it was. I said that it is hard to feel sorry for the residents of DC when they so obviously benefit from the economic realities of having trillions of tax dollars pass through Capitol Hill every year. I really don't care whether the citizens of DC get federal representation. You can't really debate this - turn back now. The problem is that there is almost no one to debate. As demonstrated by Igne's posts, almost no one here has any fucking idea what they're talking about. I think it doesn't really matter whether you're right. Even if DC is a paradise in which they swim Scrooge Mcduck-style through pools of tax dollars, I don't see any argument why they should subsequently be denied the vote. You professing to not care just shows that there's no point even discussing it with you. Like everything else, outrage is a scarce resource. There are only so many issues one can be outraged about. Whether 700,000 DC residents get federal representation is so minor of an issue that it is almost irrelevant in the big scheme of things, particularly in light of the facts that 1) they receive huge economic benefits by virtue of being in DC, and 2) they're free to move. So yeah, I really don't care one way or the other. But even presuming that I did, who exactly would I have the debate with? Which poster (other than Igne) demonstrated an even rudimentary understanding of the relevant issues? What are the relevant issues? Because the only issue to me appears to be that 700,000 people - which is 1% of the black vote in the whole country - do not get represented federally. Regardless of whether it's minor or not, would you not agree that is wrong? First, the racial component is irrelevant, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up unless you think that white people have less of a right to representation. Second, and given the unique space that DC occupies, I'm not prepared to say that the federal disenfranchisement of persons in DC is categorically "wrong." And to the extent that it is, we're talking only talking a "wrong" in the sense of being a 1 on a scale of 10. Hm, so the US had no reason to rebel against Britain?
Good luck making the argument that DC is suffering the same list of grievances that the colonists were as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
