Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote:
On October 08 2024 16:12 oBlade wrote: I have no idea what your problem is. Selective service means the draft, it doesn't refer to a history of firing federal employees - however, yes, federal employees have been fired before. No, firing people is not an inherently retarded or stupid act. Obviously. I didn't think I needed to disprove that. Show me how it's retarded first. Seems to me spending $10 trillion on a government that doesn't work would qualify as retarded more.
If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Ok.
I am letting you know the FDA arrests people. The FDA has its own law enforcement division, the aptly named Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI).
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote:
On October 08 2024 16:12 oBlade wrote: I have no idea what your problem is. Selective service means the draft, it doesn't refer to a history of firing federal employees - however, yes, federal employees have been fired before. No, firing people is not an inherently retarded or stupid act. Obviously. I didn't think I needed to disprove that. Show me how it's retarded first. Seems to me spending $10 trillion on a government that doesn't work would qualify as retarded more.
If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote:
On October 08 2024 16:12 oBlade wrote: I have no idea what your problem is. Selective service means the draft, it doesn't refer to a history of firing federal employees - however, yes, federal employees have been fired before. No, firing people is not an inherently retarded or stupid act. Obviously. I didn't think I needed to disprove that. Show me how it's retarded first. Seems to me spending $10 trillion on a government that doesn't work would qualify as retarded more.
If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote:
On October 08 2024 16:12 oBlade wrote: I have no idea what your problem is. Selective service means the draft, it doesn't refer to a history of firing federal employees - however, yes, federal employees have been fired before. No, firing people is not an inherently retarded or stupid act. Obviously. I didn't think I needed to disprove that. Show me how it's retarded first. Seems to me spending $10 trillion on a government that doesn't work would qualify as retarded more.
If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Ok.
I am letting you know the FDA arrests people. The FDA has its own law enforcement division, the aptly named Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI).
But that reality can't be true because then oBlade would need to move the goalposts a second time.
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote:
On October 08 2024 16:12 oBlade wrote: I have no idea what your problem is. Selective service means the draft, it doesn't refer to a history of firing federal employees - however, yes, federal employees have been fired before. No, firing people is not an inherently retarded or stupid act. Obviously. I didn't think I needed to disprove that. Show me how it's retarded first. Seems to me spending $10 trillion on a government that doesn't work would qualify as retarded more.
If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
60 Minutes just called out Donald Trump for dodging their interview and insisting that 60 Minutes shouldn't be allowed to fact-check him (just like how JD Vance complained about being fact-checked and embarrassed during his recent debate).
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
On October 08 2024 16:58 Acrofales wrote: [quote] If your company were to need to fire people, do you think it would be better to (a) fire those with a track record of bad performance and keep the good employees? Or (b) fire people at random?
Now let's repeat that exercise but instead, your company decides it no longer wants to be in both business A and B, but would rather focus on just A. Does it make sense to (a) fire most people in business B (maybe keeping some of the top performers and transitioning them to A), or (b) fire people at random and then transition everybody left into new teams focused on A?
I am assuming you'd say (a) to both cases, so please explain why random firings make sense in government?
E: and yes, I am generously accepting the premise that the government is too big by 1-300%, and thus needs a mass culling. I don't agree with it, but let's start with the really stupid part of your post first before moving on to what parts of government actually are too big. Although I suspect the reason you came up with the "random firing" is because you don't know what parts of government are actually underperforming and are too lazy to find out, so just fire people at random and pray the smaller government can now do more with less... or something.
1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
[quote] 1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
On October 08 2024 19:41 Acrofales wrote: [quote] I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
On October 08 2024 23:41 oBlade wrote: [quote] Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
On October 08 2024 18:18 oBlade wrote: I have nothing but respect for the country that gave us Liszt and Erdos and the only country in Europe smart enough to write their family names first, but I can't make heads or tails of whatever translator that post has been through.
If your challenge is "politicians don't always do what they say they do," that's true, but it's a separate issue from "what should politicians do," like you have to be right about the latter before you can hold them to account for not following through on something that everybody "knew" wasn't real anyway.
[quote] 1) You can do both. The whole challenge is an unnecessary either/or bifurcation.
You're correct I don't have a 100% perfectly measured picture of what parts of the government are underperforming. Neither does the government itself. That's part of the problem. Let's compromise, cut it in half immediately to start. Have the survivors audit each other.
2) I didn't come up with it. Someone else did. That's why I wrote "Republican proposal" in the post. Vivek and others have brought it up. Drumpf usually puts it at 50% I think, so Vivek turboed it to 75%. People who follow politics have encountered what both sides are up to and talking about before.
The US Postal Service? Come on, don't be absurd. I had a family member not get mail for 2 weeks. They called the post office. "Oh yeah, your mailman retired 2 weeks ago." You have a government agency that is the sole legal way to deliver certain things, their workers also have a union, and that union endorsed a candidate in a postal election.
I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
The ATF is mostly about F, which is what the rest of run of the mill law enforcement runs into at every level already that you don't need a separate agency. It creates overlap, bloat, competition where there should be cooperation (which is not reliable when you're working between agencies instead of under one umbrella), and abuse because federal law enforcement have - to put it simply - higher authority than others, so when they ride along with state or local law enforcement, it gives the combined local cop and ATF guy far broader discretion to fish and abuse and disrupt people's lives.
The A and T could get absorbed by the FDA that you brought up due to genuine curiosity about my political beliefs, because A is a food already and T is food-adjacent enough, especially since there's chewing tobacco and the FDA regulates gum and other random things that can be ingested.
On October 08 2024 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
About as much as anyone's getting from this exchange.
On October 08 2024 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
What do you mean? I believe that there is value in discrediting or refuting or pointing out inconsistencies in someone's statements.
On October 08 2024 23:55 oBlade wrote: [quote] Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
About as much as anyone's getting from this exchange.
'Either you're interested in seeing the discussion take a new angle, and you do something to make it happen, or you don't care to change it, but don't expect us to do it for you.
You're just as free to contribute to the conversation as anyone else, nobody's sidelining you and preventing you from being a part of the discussion'.
I suppose shitposting oneliners is more fun though?
On October 08 2024 19:41 Acrofales wrote: [quote] I looked at what Ramaswamy wanted to do. Apparently abolishing the FBI was one of those. I could probably get behind that, although I'd personally start with the DEA, which he didn't mention. He did mention the ATF, which I find a weird choice. I guess illegal gun trade is popular among certain 2nd amendment enthusiasts?
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal. You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects.
The FDA = The Food and Drug Administration. Do you believe the FDA should be abolished and that we shouldn't have oversight in regards to public health and safety related to food and medicine?
Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
The ATF is mostly about F, which is what the rest of run of the mill law enforcement runs into at every level already that you don't need a separate agency. It creates overlap, bloat, competition where there should be cooperation (which is not reliable when you're working between agencies instead of under one umbrella), and abuse because federal law enforcement have - to put it simply - higher authority than others, so when they ride along with state or local law enforcement, it gives the combined local cop and ATF guy far broader discretion to fish and abuse and disrupt people's lives.
The A and T could get absorbed by the FDA that you brought up due to genuine curiosity about my political beliefs, because A is a food already and T is food-adjacent enough, especially since there's chewing tobacco and the FDA regulates gum and other random things that can be ingested.
Okay, so you believe that the ATF could be dismantled because it's generally redundant, bloated, and some important parts could already be absorbed by other administrations. That's much more helpful of an explanation than claiming it ought to be dismantled because alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all "inanimate objects". I appreciate the clarification.
On October 08 2024 23:55 oBlade wrote: [quote] Let me know when the FDA starts arresting people.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
What do you mean? I believe that there is value in discrediting or refuting or pointing out inconsistencies in someone's statements.
I mean sure that's true as a vague statement about life in general, but I'm talking about in the context of you and oBlade here.
Are you saying you think what you/we stand to gain from your persistent and most recent engagement with oBlade is a new understanding that oBlades statements are not credible or consistent with each other/reality?
On October 09 2024 00:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
About as much as anyone's getting from this exchange.
'Either you're interested in seeing the discussion take a new angle, and you do something to make it happen, or you don't care to change it, but don't expect us to do it for you.
You're just as free to contribute to the conversation as anyone else, nobody's sidelining you and preventing you from being a part of the discussion'.
I suppose shitposting oneliners is more fun though?
Hey, if the shoe fits! You're free to decide to yourself that there's no value in pointing out the problems in other people's arguments, and refrain from doing so, as you largely do. I just think this is an area where you shouldn't be shocked if other people feel differently, and see value in discrediting lies and exposing hypocrisy where they find it.
I know my posts tend to be on the shorter side, I tend to feel that brevity helps get a point across in most cases, but if I feel a need to elaborate I will certainly do so. I just didn't feel the need to give you more than a one liner for argument #2,187 about how we're all fools for bothering to spend any time refuting right-wing arguments.
On October 09 2024 00:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Let me know when you're going to answer my question.
That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
What do you mean? I believe that there is value in discrediting or refuting or pointing out inconsistencies in someone's statements.
I mean sure that's true as a vague statement about life in general, but I'm talking about in the context of you and oBlade here.
Are you saying you think what you/we stand to gain from your persistent and most recent engagement with oBlade is a new understanding that oBlades statements are not credible or consistent with each other/reality?
Because that sounds silly.
Through my conversation with oBlade, he clarified his position on why he believes the ATF should be dismantled. I think that's useful information. I'm not sure how much value I'm getting from your meta-discussions about the value of other discussions though.
On October 09 2024 00:15 oBlade wrote: [quote] That was the answer, my friend.
There's no agency that overlaps the FDA in ensuring that the food you eat, despite my best efforts, is free of poison. So until their mission overlaps with someone else's, like law enforcement, they're not on the chopping block.
Let me know when you're going to answer my question. If you want to dismantle the FDA, then just say so.
Nobody wants to dismantle the FDA, you're the first to have suggested anything resembling it.
So then it seems that your statement of "You don't need a separate agency to police inanimate objects" isn't always the case now, is it?
At this point I'm just genuinely curious what you think you or anyone else stands to gain from your continued engagement with these inane tangents with oBlade?
I don't think there's a problem with calling out oBlade on his nonsense while also juggling other more substantive conversations, such as my current one with Introvert. I can chat with multiple people at the same time
Sooo, nothing?
About as much as anyone's getting from this exchange.
'Either you're interested in seeing the discussion take a new angle, and you do something to make it happen, or you don't care to change it, but don't expect us to do it for you.
You're just as free to contribute to the conversation as anyone else, nobody's sidelining you and preventing you from being a part of the discussion'.
I suppose shitposting oneliners is more fun though?
Hey, if the shoe fits! You're free to decide to yourself that there's no value in pointing out the problems in other people's arguments, and refrain from doing so, as you largely do. I just think this is an area where you shouldn't be shocked if other people feel differently, and see value in discrediting lies and exposing hypocrisy.
I know my posts tend to be on the shorter side, I tend to feel that brevity helps get a point across in most cases, but if I feel a need to elaborate I will certainly do so. I just didn't feel the need to give you more than a one liner for argument #2,187 about how we're all fools for bothering to spend any time refuting right-wing arguments
I'm not shocked, and of course we all see value in discrediting lies and exposing hypocrisy as a general principle.
I'm just pointing out you guys could probably also get away with a couple one-liner shitposts for argument #4,188+ Show Spoiler +
,242,423,425,647,982,479,160...
about how Republicans/conservatives/Trumpers/libertarians said/did something stupid and leave it at that.
Don't need to have half a dozen people all saying variations of the same "lol, dumb" or pointless clarifying questions for half a dozen pages every time oBlade or BJ say something ridiculous. Whatever value is in still engaging with oBlade at all (to discredit or whatever) is exhausted about 30+ posts before people finally stop.
And again, while I am not denying I have a self-interest about this specifically here, I'm raising it because it also applies to US politics generally. While libs are all getting a laugh and a dopamine hit pwning someone like oBlade, Trump, MTG, etc for how stupid, gullible, hypocritical, etc they are, the right wingers don't care because the point is to drown out any engagement on anything else that matters.
When you're talking about how stupid Trump or his supporters are, Trump/Republicans are winning, because their message is basically "they think you're stupid, vote for us" and all you do is prove them right all day every day. Which might make you think "well that's stupid" to which I would say "No shit, you spend all day pointing out how they are easily manipulated fools incapable of seeing reality and you want to be surprised they fall for such a simple ruse as that?"
I think oBlades contributions would generally be better served as being ignored for the ridiculousness they are, but for those that insist otherwise, my point is that it undermines engagement on anything that isn't this persistent prodding of the most asinine things oBlade, BJ, Trump, etc say. That's not my opinion, that's just an observable fact here and beyond.
On October 09 2024 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote: someone like oBlade, Trump, MTG, etc for how stupid, gullible, hypocritical, etc they are, the right wingers don't care because the point is to drown out any engagement on anything else that matters.
On October 09 2024 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote: things oBlade, BJ, Trump, etc say. That's not my opinion, that's just an observable fact here and beyond.
I am absolutely floored to have earned top billing among such a crowd. I'd like to thank the academy, I mean, the university, by which I mean Prager of course.
EPT
