… Seriously, you’ve got to just be fucking around now. How do you think that that’s anything remotely approaching an economic policy? Not a policy that will affect the economy, tard, but an actual economic policy.
Jesus christ, it’s like trying to argue with a fucking three year old. But at least the three year old would have a chance of doing something adorable.
Fair enough, but prohibition and the War on Drugs were certainly conservative initiatives.
Prohibition, not so much. Bunch of do-gooders, determined to free the working class from the curse of drink. Right instinct, wrong target.
I thought it was a bunch of religious people? Demon rum and all that.
Well, the temperance movement n the US was originally religious people talking about demon rum, and then added progressives who thought alcohol encouraged spousal abuse.
Typically, though, sumptuary laws have pretty much always been a hallmark of conservatism.
A quick Wikipedia scan seems to suggest that the whole thing was pretty equally supported by Democrats and Republicans (and wasn’t this back before the Dem/Repub switch as to who was the “liberal” party and who was the “conservative” one?). I don’t think we can pin that one on either “side.”
??
Either your response was hyperbolic and facetious, in which case I love you, or you’re really that stupid, in which case you’re just adorable. Either way, <3.
No, I think I’ve heard enough.
Your criteria is utter bullshit.
When the policy can have huge economic costs, it’s the height of absurdity to hide behind the odious fiction that it’s “a policy that will affect the economy” but not an actual economic policy. It’s an attempt to redraw the rules of your little transparent partisan slam in a way to insulate your side from any real consequences.
I’m not sure what’s worse – the idea that you believe your pathetic dribble, or the idea that you don’t but somehow think that any significant portion of the readers of this thread are so dim that they will.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see that as an economic issue either. Pretty much all legislation has some economic impact, but you should consider something that is primarily economic-- like raising the minimum wage to a “living wage”, or increasing taxes to 90% on high income earners, or slapping a 100% tariff on goods from countries that don’t meet our own environmental standards, or… I think you should get the point.
Sure, but remember how this all started. Shot was saying, in effect, “If you are truly a social liberal and an economic conservative, how can you possibly claim to favor the Republicans, since the worst [economic] case with Democrats in charge is that your taxes pay for social programs, some of which may benefit you; the worst [social] case for Republicans to be in charge in the imprisonment of LGBT people, the denial of all access to birth control for women, and the enshrinement of the Ten Commandment in the Constitution!”
And my objection was that this was not a balanced portrayal.
Rather than fighting the hypothetical, I sought to explore just how fair this distinction would be. But to dismiss a program that is motivated by social engineering desires as “not economic” is horribly myopic without considering how much it will cost us. Indeed, that failure is exactly what I see as wrong with much of the liberal movement in America: a sense that costs are secondary to these grand social designs. You cannot credibly simply impose an edict and declare that since it’s motivated by a desire to achieve some good social end, it’s a social program and its economic influence is thereby canceled out — thinking worthy of my Mom’s conviction that the calories from a broken cookie “don’t count.”
“Criteria” is plural, moron. Either my “**criteria are **utter bullshit” or my “**criterion is **utter bullshit.”
Except that’s the entire point of the exercise. Sigh. You apparently are just that fucking retarded. Pity.
It’s certainly a discussion we could have, and you would be right to point it out in another context. BUT THE PERSON SAID THEY APPROVED OF THE PARTY’S SOCIAL POLICIES, SO IN A DISCUSSION OF A WORST-CASE SCENARIO OF ITS ECONOMIC POLICIES, YOU CAN’T KEEP BRINGING UP ITS SOCIAL POLICIES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE ECONOMIC REPURCUSSIONS. I make this very large, so even a retard can read it and, I hope, finally get it through his monumentally thick skullparts. You’ll notice that I applied the same standard to the Republican worst-case scenario: one could certainly make arguments about the potentail economic fallout from Republican social policies, but you’ll note I didn’t address any of them. BECAUSE THAT’S NOT THE FUCKING POINT. The point is THE POLICIES THEMSELVES, considered individually. Christ.
This whole thing is really because, in a straight-up comparison of Republican social policies and Democratic economic ones, Republicans come off as looking like wacked-out psychotic totalitarians. Because that’s what the party has become these days. Screaming at the person who’s pointing that out isn’t going to change anything. Your only option was to point out ways in which my projections were inaccurate, within the confines of the exercise, and you could only come up with one modification that actually fit those restrictions, which I happily accepted.
If somebody says they like the taste of oranges but not the texture, and the texture of apples but not the taste, so they go with oranges, and I then set up a comparison of the texture of oranges to the taste of apples, you can’t keep screaming BUT APPLES ARE SO MEALY!!!
Be happy with my concession of error on this point, because, unless things change drastically, I don’t believe you’ll be seeing any others.
Well, then. No one can argue with the cogency of that argument, seeing as how it’s writ large. Literally. :rolleyes:
An interesting analogy.
And the response is, “Yes, but there’s no way to get the taste of apples without also getting the texture, so trying to consider the taste in a vacuum is a monumentally foolish waste of time!”
You guys are like flesh-and-blood yin and yang, if yin and yang had megaphones and earplugs.
Any argument with Bricker will, sooner or later, depend upon excruciatingly precise semantic distinctions. You think you know what the words mean, but you don’t. Bricker knows what the words really mean. They mean he is right, and you are wrong.
As it happens, I had occasion to look into this a couple of weeks ago, and to my surprise I learned that this is no longer the case. To wit, from M-W Online:
Now, while lawyerly folk like friend Bricker may prefer to stick with the more technically correct “criterion” as the singular form of the word, it doesn’t appear that the use of “criteria” as singular is sufficient to mark one as a “moron”.
It’s a funny thing about this place – it’s often the posters with the greatest penchant for calling their opponents morons and retards who end up looking the most retarded and moronic themselves.
Takes one to know one, as they say.
Of course it’s *commonly used *as a singular. Language evolves, after all. But even the M-W note merely comments on its appearance, not its acceptability. (Cf. the entry on nauseous, with the comment on the *absolute acceptability *of using it to mean “affected with nausea” as well as “causing nausea.”)
Aren’t there some kids you should be chasing off your lawn with a hose while you masturbate to photocopies of anti-miscegenation laws?
Pithy, yet eloquent.
ETA:
Then you are certainly welcome to shut the fuck up and go play in your own sandbox. You strike me as the kind of person who gets invited to dinner exactly once, whereupon over the course of the meal, you complain that the turkey is too dry, there aren’t enough kinds of forks, the dressing on the salad had too much vinegar, and you’d really have preferred a pie for dessert.
Deep down inside we’d all prefer pie.
Shutupshutupshutupshutup about “criteria”. I hate these semantic derailings.
You may, however, continue to discuss pie.