Could you? It would really speed things up.
Still *sans *the balls to actually propose a scenario that’s within the bounds of the exercise as stated, eh? Don’t know why I’m disappointed–I should have seen it coming.
Still waiting to hear the bullshit reason the wage and price controls thing I mentioned above doesn’t fit any of your rules.
You haven’t actually proposed it. *Had *you proposed it, you’d have had the honor of being knocked back on your smug ass by me saying, “Sure, I could see that.”
Wait. So you’re objection is that he didn’t say something along the lines of “I officially propose…”?
Here is his post: (emphases mine)
Then you respond by quoting the bolded part above and saying:
So, when you quoted him you (ahem) inadvertently left out one important word. The word “Right?” But you did read that word. And since he included it, asking you if you would shoot that down, as well, the proposal was, in fact, on the table.
Hope that helps.
No, he didn’t ask. He **told **me I would, **were **he to propose it. **Bricker **was being a petulant child, so I was attempting to make him behave.
ETA (because you don’t understand language): “Right?” doesn’t make it an actual question. In English, it’s a marker for a tag question. It’s not actually *asking *the question–it’s a conversational technique to engage your listener. The inherent assumption is that the listner will agree with what you’re saying. When you say, “Cold outside, isn’t it?” it’s because you’re expecting a positive answer back. See also: *nonne *in Latin and ね *ne *in Japanese.
Did you want a certified letter, return receipt requested?
OK, you know what? Never mind.
I am now proposing, officially, wage and price controls, equal pay for similar work schemes that would equate teachers to truck drivers and fix wages to each other, or some such, as examples of Democratic economic nonsense. You agree this is within whatever rules you’ve crafted for the "worst-case scenarios?’
Actually, if you could please have something engraved, that would be my preference.
Yes, I’ll absolutely accept this as an addition to the Democratic economic worst-case doomsday scenario. I think your particulars are a little odd,* but that’s a hair I’m not going to bother to split, since the principle is decently sound. Some kind of wage-fixing, especially with job equivalency, would certainly be a reasonable end-stage inflation of some current policies.
I breathlessly await your confirmation that the gulping sound I can hear off in the distance is you swallowing your own words.
*Seriously, *teachers *and truck drivers equivalent? I’d expect teachers to be pushed way up there. Truck drivers and CEOs, maybe. 
It’s unclear to me if you’ve answered ‘yes’ to this one because you genuinely accept it and would have all along, or because the repeated rejections of scenarios were causing such a loss of credibility that you were forced into saying ‘yes’ now.
But in either event, I’m glad I was wrong, and am perfectly happy to admit that, contrary to my prediction, you’ve accepted this one.
OK, what next? How about some sort of extreme secular angle? A Der Trihs-style elimination of state accreditation for any religious private schools, for example, the dropping of “In God We Trust” from money, and/or the elimination of paid chaplains in the armed forces and for legislative bodies?
:rolleyes: I expected an response like this, but I thought there was a tiny possibility that you might be more mature than that. But thanks for proving yet again that when I assume the worst about people, I’m usually right.
Those, to me, all seem like social policies, not economic ones. Really, how fucking hard **is **this? For the umpteen-billionth fucking time: **Republican **social policies; **Democratic **economic policies.
Jesus **fucking **christ. You must be (a) retarded, (b) drunk, or (c) fucking with me. Please tell me which it is so I can respond accordingly going forward.
Well, he did say “In God We Trust” on money, so one might argue that is an economic issue.
Actually, I’d say they involve the intersection of social and economic policies, in three gradients, chosen for precisely that reason: the purely technical one involving money, the slightly more more involved one inolving state accreditation, which has secondary effects for the financial health of schools but no primary economic effects, and the refusal to pay salaries for chaplains, which is a more direct economic move (although driven by ideology).
My purpose here, rather than to argue with you about the utterly ridiculous rules you’ve created in an effort to insulate yourself from simply admitting you’re a left-leaning partisan who crafted the initial comparison unfairly, is to accept the rules, throw out examples, and see what you agree to in the hope that evident contradictions will emerge.
So for the official record, you’re saying no to the money, the chaplains, and the school accreditation? None of those fit?
Correct. None of those fit. They may have economic repurcussions, but they are not in and of themselves economic positions.
1.) Der Trihs-style elimination of state accreditation for any religious private schools
I’m not actually 100% sure what you mean by this. If it’s something like, “no state money will be used to in any way subsidize any institution with any religious courses,” it could maaaaaaybe fit (see discussion under #3). But if it’s “the state will not recognize degrees granted by any institution with any religious courses,” that’s a social policy, not an economic one.
2.) the dropping of “In God We Trust” from money
Currency design is not an economic policy.
3.) the elimination of paid chaplains in the armed forces and for legislative bodies
Deciding whether or not the state will subsidize religious activity is kind of borderline as to whether it’s “social” or “economic.” I’m finding myself kind of on the fence for these: I’m leaning toward saying #1 might work if it’s the former case but #3 would not, and I’m trying to figure out why. Perhaps it’s because it’s the subsidy of an entire industry versus an individual occupation? However, the overarching principle here seems to be a particular application of the idea of the separation of church and state, which is a social issue, not an economic one. It may have economic applications, but that doesn’t make it an economic policy.
By the criteria you’re using, *anything *could be considered an economic policy, simply because it involves money in some way. Shooting myself in the head in frustration with your unbelievable stupidity would be an economic policy, since I wouldn’t be earning income anymore, and my brother would get my life insurance money (or would he, since it’s suicide? but I digress).
And I have repeatedly admitted that I’m not only left-leaning: I’m so fucking far out in left field, you can’t even see me from the bleachers on the other side. Which is why I invited you to include your own examples, if you didn’t like mine. Not my fault you’re too retarded to figure out the rules of the game.
Sure it does. Your problem seems to be that there’s too full a stop between the body and the “right?”. Please. He wasn’t just telling you. He WOULD have been doing that if the “Right?” was not there. But it was. I can’t believe you’ve gotten on your high horse because he used a period instead of a comma or a dash.
Sigh.
Bricker, you couldn’t be more right. I can’t believe that people forget the wage and price controls imposed by Nixon. Fucking Democrats.
<3
Do states actually accredit private schools?
OK, one more.
Banning of trans-fats in restaurant food, because it’s unhealthy.
That would seem more of a Republican move than a Democratic one.
Not so far as I’m aware. In heavily Democrat-dominated Montgomery County, Maryland, the county council has done just that. I’m not aware of any Republican proposal to do the same anywhere.