Page 372 of 380 FirstFirst ... 272322362370371372373374 ... LastLast
Results 14,841 to 14,880 of 15173

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #14841
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    ftr the most important assumption to justify is the idea that profit even makes sense when youíre talking about government. Which Iíll admit isnít fair for me to ask, because itís a significant reasoning gap with American conservatives in particular. Not to spoil the answer, but realizing that governments canít profit also puts a bullet in the idea of running government as a business/household.

  2. #14842
    Okay, substitute the word benefit for profit. Hard to criticize you for taking my usage of a word literally because that's kind of the point of language but you really didn't have an assumption of how I was [mis]using the word?
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  3. #14843
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    In this context, benefit and profit are synonyms.

  4. #14844
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Can you be more specific?
    It sounds like he believes governments are somehow completely disconnected from individuals, and aren't supposed to represent people like him. I think.

  5. #14845
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Even ignoring what a government really is, and just looking at it like a prolific mobster who extorts a bottom line cut from everybody... they donít benefit from this sort of fine. Theyíd profit much more by Facebook reinvesting the money and hiring more software engineers to tax. Doing this is actually to the governmentís detriment because $5bn is a not insignificant potential hit to GDP growth (their future revenue stream). And the idea that the government benefits from this assumes the government hasnít already been harmed by Facebook retarding the economy in other places, e.g. destructive trade policies that only happened because Facebook flipped a few thousand votes in Ohio.

    And thatís just a really superficial comparison.

  6. #14846
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    It sounds like he believes governments are somehow completely disconnected from individuals, and aren't supposed to represent people like him. I think.
    No, I already addressed that [briefly].

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Even ignoring what a government really is, and just looking at it like a prolific mobster who extorts a bottom line cut from everybody... they don’t benefit from this sort of fine. They’d profit much more by Facebook reinvesting the money and hiring more software engineers to tax. Doing this is actually to the government’s detriment because $5bn is a not insignificant potential hit to GDP growth (their future revenue stream). And the idea that the government benefits from this assumes the government hasn’t already been harmed by Facebook retarding the economy in other places, e.g. destructive trade policies that only happened because Facebook flipped a few thousand votes in Ohio.

    And that’s just a really superficial comparison.
    Well, I was speaking in general terms and never referred to the case you're referencing. I was quite clear on that. I was also quite clear that I only thought briefly on the topic and didn't offer an opinion. Not that you're claiming I did, you just seem to be refuting points I didn't make. I was completely unaware of this Facebook case and am also completely ignorant of the details.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  7. #14847
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Iím not refuting anything. Basically all Iím saying is that macroeconomics, political economics and the role of government are complicated subjects and require you to shed a lot of cultural assumptions to make good progress reasoning about them. American culture primes you to reason about the government as though it were just one competing organization among many, when itís really more like the dungeon master of historyís most unbalanced D&D campaign.

    As an example of what happens when you set policy without that understanding is the United Statesí civil asset forfeiture scheme. The government thought they gave itself a profit incentive to crack down on crime, and the consequence is a state sponsored crime spree that chills other economic activity.

  8. #14848
    Conversely, I also have mixed thoughts on judgments against government agencies. There was a relatively recent story I heard about a relatively small town or county that had a large judgment against them that was significantly going to affect residents there, probably through property taxes. I wish I could remember more details so I can find the story. Certainly there are grievous damages caused by government such as a wrongful imprisonment and I'm not suggesting penalties or restitution are never warranted. Again, just a thought and I wanted to mention because it kind of contrasts with my previous comments.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  9. #14849
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Rex non potest peccare. The idea that a government even can have wronged someone, rather than just having made a decision for the greater good that happens to have turned out badly for you, is a modern invention.

  10. #14850
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    I wonder if Donald Trump is going to pardon Jeffrey Epstein.

  11. #14851
    I wonder if Donald Trump is going to pardon Bill Clinton.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  12. #14852
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I wonder if Donald Trump is going to pardon Bill Clinton.
    is he eskimo uncles with Clinton too??

  13. #14853
    Urban dictionary leaves me confused.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  14. #14854
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    I dunno, I was thinking like "eskimo brothers" but that doesn't quite work because it's also raping a trafficked teenager.

    because Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have been partying together for 32 years, and according to reliable source Donald Trump, Epstein likes them on the "younger side".

  15. #14855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Rex non potest peccare. The idea that a government even can have wronged someone, rather than just having made a decision for the greater good that happens to have turned out badly for you, is a modern invention.
    Eh... most post-Platonic and post-Aristotelian political schemas postulate that there are proper types of regimes (or forms of government), which serve the greater good, and defective (or tyrannical) types of regimes (or forms of government), where those in power serve their own interests at the expense of the greater good. The latter regimes are seen as essentially corrupt.

  16. #14856
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Eh... most post-Platonic and post-Aristotelian political schemas postulate that there are proper types of regimes (or forms of government), which serve the greater good, and defective (or tyrannical) types of regimes (or forms of government), where those in power serve their own interests at the expense of the greater good. The latter regimes are seen as essentially corrupt.
    rex non potest peccare is a legal doctrine, not a philosophical statement.

  17. #14857
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    rex non potest peccare is a legal doctrine, not a philosophical statement.
    yeah yeah yeah ok, the notion of limited government implicit in the idea that individuals have inalienable rights that not even governments are permitted to violate is a modern idea AFAIK, although medieval philosophers, e.g., Aquinas, certainly entertained the idea (although he entertained the idea to show that it was incoherent).

  18. #14858
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    I dunno, I was thinking like "eskimo brothers" but that doesn't quite work because it's also raping a trafficked teenager.

    because Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have been partying together for 32 years, and according to reliable source Donald Trump, Epstein likes them on the "younger side".
    Well, I don't think much of Trump's morals but I'm very skeptical that Trump is a child rapist. Something that clicked for me though with this recent case, and I really don't remember hearing about Epstein before, is something I have always remembered hearing on the radio over 15 years ago.

    When I was in California I typically came home fairly late. There was a radio program called The Radio Detective and you can look the guy up, he somewhat recently passed away I found, but I remember a segment about Clinton but I really couldn't remember much more than a few vague details. I remember private airplane, Mexico, underage girls, and, I believe, the word "lolita". Now I don't when it is that Clinton first started flying on Epstein's plane but when I looked up the details after Spook mentioned Epstein I was reminded of that old radio segment from probably around 2002.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  19. #14859
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    yeah yeah yeah ok, the notion of limited government implicit in the idea that individuals have inalienable rights that not even governments are permitted to violate is a modern idea AFAIK, although medieval philosophers, e.g., Aquinas, certainly entertained the idea (although he entertained the idea to show that it was incoherent).
    Modern as in since the 1700s at the latest?
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  20. #14860
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Modern as in since the 1700s at the latest?
    With roots in the Renaissance, but yeah.

  21. #14861
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    yeah yeah yeah ok, the notion of limited government implicit in the idea that individuals have inalienable rights that not even governments are permitted to violate is a modern idea AFAIK, although medieval philosophers, e.g., Aquinas, certainly entertained the idea (although he entertained the idea to show that it was incoherent).
    No, itís not talking about that, itís about the idea that governments can be held accountable for damages generated from their decisions (tort).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Modern as in since the 1700s at the latest?
    Within the last generation, for the legal doctrine.

    If you are talking about limited government the idea dates to antiquity, but if you want modern continuity it would be since the early 1200s.

  22. #14862
    Well, I see based on your two replies in that last post what you're talking about now. Too tired now so you're saved from getting another post from me about it.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  23. #14863
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    ISDS is my favorite gonzo Reaganite invention. Neoliberal really undersells these people, they should have been called hypernegaliberal or something.

  24. #14864
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Well, I don't think much of Trump's morals but I'm very skeptical that Trump is a child rapist. Something that clicked for me though with this recent case, and I really don't remember hearing about Epstein before, is something I have always remembered hearing on the radio over 15 years ago.

    When I was in California I typically came home fairly late. There was a radio program called The Radio Detective and you can look the guy up, he somewhat recently passed away I found, but I remember a segment about Clinton but I really couldn't remember much more than a few vague details. I remember private airplane, Mexico, underage girls, and, I believe, the word "lolita". Now I don't when it is that Clinton first started flying on Epstein's plane but when I looked up the details after Spook mentioned Epstein I was reminded of that old radio segment from probably around 2002.
    Fascinating "barely remembered, I'm not sure but I think I recall this word or that word, it was on a late night radio show, skeptical but anyway I'm not saying, I just remember this one person who you can look up said something a long time ago about something" story, dude.

  25. #14865
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Why is it that conservatives seem fundamentally incapable of just saying "yeah, Trump/that Republican did/might do something ****ty"? It's like there's a pathological need to deflect blame by making comparisons to Democrats. If it was just a couple times, I wouldn't notice, but it seems now to just be an immediate reflexive defense. This thread serves as an example.

    Not trying to be rude, just neutrally hostile. It's a very poor rhetorical flourish, anyone can see through the paper thin psychology of it. Why do conservatives insist on doing it? And before someone unironically points out "Democrats do it to!", first lol, but second yes, I know, it just seems more of a blanket problem with conservatives since Trump than with Democrats.

  26. #14866
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    And before someone unironically points out "Democrats do it to!", first lol, but second yes, I know, it just seems more of a blanket problem with conservatives since Trump than with Democrats.
    First, lol back at ya, and second, Democrats do do it too, and it ďseemsĒ just as much like ďa blanket problemĒ for them.

    I suppose, for me, trying to claim that one side of the political spectrum is uniquely hypocritical requires a commitment to the partisan aspect of politics that goes beyond my interest level. Itís not surprising to me that people do it, but I just donít have a high enough level of party affiliation to feel like thereís my team and thereís the other team.

  27. #14867
    Quote Originally Posted by saberopus View Post
    Fascinating "barely remembered, I'm not sure but I think I recall this word or that word, it was on a late night radio show, skeptical but anyway I'm not saying, I just remember this one person who you can look up said something a long time ago about something" story, dude.
    I know it was about Clinton being on an airplane to bang underage girls. I don't remember if Epstein was mentioned. I have not researched when Clinton's first Lolita Express flight was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Why is it that conservatives seem fundamentally incapable of just saying "yeah, Trump/that Republican did/might do something ****ty"? It's like there's a pathological need to deflect blame by making comparisons to Democrats. If it was just a couple times, I wouldn't notice, but it seems now to just be an immediate reflexive defense. This thread serves as an example.

    Not trying to be rude, just neutrally hostile. It's a very poor rhetorical flourish, anyone can see through the paper thin psychology of it. Why do conservatives insist on doing it? And before someone unironically points out "Democrats do it to!", first lol, but second yes, I know, it just seems more of a blanket problem with conservatives since Trump than with Democrats.
    I don't have any problem acknowledging Trump's scumbag behavior. Like I said, I'm just skeptical he'll be revealed as a child rapist. If that were true I think credible information would have been revealed by now but that's the only reason I'd be surprised if it does turn out to be the case.

    Clinton, on the other hand, could very well go down hard. Young blood democrats don't care about him and have no reason to protect him. If he is revealed and doesn't go down it will be because of his irrelevance.

  28. #14868
    Oh, and it looks like Clinton started flying the Lolita Express in 2001. About a year before I would have heard that segment.

  29. #14869
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    First, lol back at ya, and second, Democrats do do it too, and it “seems” just as much like “a blanket problem” for them.

    I suppose, for me, trying to claim that one side of the political spectrum is uniquely hypocritical requires a commitment to the partisan aspect of politics that goes beyond my interest level. It’s not surprising to me that people do it, but I just don’t have a high enough level of party affiliation to feel like there’s my team and there’s the other team.
    Democrats are ****ty in different ways.

  30. #14870
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I don't have any problem acknowledging Trump's scumbag behavior.
    Well that's good to hear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Like I said, I'm just skeptical he'll be revealed as a child rapist. If that were true I think credible information would have been revealed by now but that's the only reason I'd be surprised if it does turn out to be the case.
    Oh, I wasn't really referring to that discussion, but I agree with you. Are people thinking this will happen? In any case, what I was referring to was the discussion of pardons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Clinton, on the other hand, could very well go down hard. Young blood democrats don't care about him and have no reason to protect him. If he is revealed and doesn't go down it will be because of his irrelevance.
    Ehh, you think there's any more evidence against Clinton than Trump?

  31. #14871
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Democrats are ****ty in different ways.
    True, but theyíre both hypocritical. Partisan Dems and Republicans are both incapable of recognizing their own faults and of exaggerating the faults of their opponents.

  32. #14872
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    True, but they’re both hypocritical. Partisan Dems and Republicans are both incapable of recognizing their own faults and of exaggerating the faults of their opponents.
    Agreed.

  33. #14873
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Question: why are all male hygiene products subtly homoerotic? They're all like "we all know you want that thick, masculine musk wafting in the air".

  34. #14874
    same reason (((they))) put SOY in your food, circumcised you, CLAMPED your umbilical chord, told you to watch My Little Pony, and fluoridated the water supply.

  35. #14875
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    same reason (((they))) put SOY in your food, circumcised you, CLAMPED your umbilical chord, told you to watch My Little Pony, and fluoridated the water supply.
    So that Alex Jones can sell me brain explosion pills?

  36. #14876
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Ehh, you think there's any more evidence against Clinton than Trump?
    I think there could be. It's also very believable. Apparently the Clinton machine already released a bogus statement about how many flights he took on that plane and how many times Secret Service were on those flights with him. I think it will also depend on whether prosecutors are even open to dealing with Epstein. This could also just be a Trump trump card.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  37. #14877
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,119
    Trump: "I've known Jeff for 35 years, he's a great guy. He sure likes his women, maybe even almost as much as I do. On the younger side, too."

    Republicans: "Hmm, yes, yes, Bill Clinton knew him also"

    Clinton: "I went on four trips with him and a bunch of other celebrities"

    Republicans: "What a bogus statement, I'm going to shoot up a pizza parlor"

  38. #14878
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Trump: "I've known Jeff for 35 years, he's a great guy. He sure likes his women, maybe even almost as much as I do. On the younger side, too."

    Republicans: "Hmm, yes, yes, Bill Clinton knew him also"

    Clinton: "I went on four trips with him and a bunch of other celebrities"

    Republicans: "What a bogus statement, I'm going to shoot up a pizza parlor"
    Gotta find a Democrat to point fingers at, why not Clinton?

  39. #14879
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I think there could be. It's also very believable. Apparently the Clinton machine already released a bogus statement about how many flights he took on that plane and how many times Secret Service were on those flights with him. I think it will also depend on whether prosecutors are even open to dealing with Epstein. This could also just be a Trump trump card.
    Hmm, interesting conspiracy theory. We'll see when these facts come to light.

  40. #14880
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    So that Alex Jones can sell me brain explosion pills?
    Yes. Alex Jones is compromised COINTELPRO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •