My dad makes an absolutely amazing pecan pie that involves chunks of dark chocolate. I really need to get that recipe from him.
Why do you hate Sarah Palin’s baby? You should count yourself lucky if she does not feature you in her blog, and demand your banning from the SDMB.
And you strike me as the kind of person that I wouldn’t go to for advice about interpersonal relationships.
And the idea that is thread is somehow your sandbox, from which you are empowered to grant and rescind invitations, is about as bizarre as the rest of your half-formed and incoherent speculations.
It’s the Pit. Get over yourself.
The thread isn’t; that particular hypothetical is. And I still really don’t see what’s so hard to understand about it: someone says that Republican social policies are the lesser of two evils when compared to Democratic economic ones, so I actually stop to compare the two. There’s no legitimate reason to drag in anything else, because that’s what we’re discussing. It wasn’t the “Bricker hates everything about liberals” discussion–it started with someone who likes the Democrats’ social policies, so talking about how those will fuck the economy is so irrelevant it borders on trolling. Not everything is about you, and you don’t need to make everything about you.
You know the problem with stupid, dumbass posts like this? Other stupid dumbasses come along and read 'em and believe them.
I’ve got close to 8,700 posts here. Let’s see even one that would indicate that I’ve ever favored anti-miscegenation laws (or attitudes, for that matter).
(Remember upthread where I alluded to the fact that it’s posters such as yourself who are so quick to throw around words like “retarded” and “moron” who are most often guilty of that behavior themselves? Well, you’re not proving me wrong.)
Concur. He has his faults, Lord knows, and the list is long, but that ain’t on it. Not guilty.
And please don’t ever make me do this again.
’luci and Starving, sitting in a tree… 
Nope, I’ll agree with both of you: Shot from Guns screwed the pooch on that one.
Is there anything left under discussion in this thread, other than pie and random abuse?
Thanks, guys. I know how painful that must have been for you.
Not at all. There’s plenty to pick on you for, without needing to make up new stuff. 
The problem is that what you’re comparing has no basis in reality – when you impose Democratic social policies, they have an economic effect. When you impose Republican economic policies, they have a social effect. And vice versa.
Now, I agree that the effects may be so attenuated in some cases that’s it’s reasonable to separate them… which is why I started asking questions. But your answers quickly revealed that your myopic view of the issue was taken to an absurd length – that you were going to simply dismiss even obvious, first-order effects of policies. Banning trans-fats because they’re unhealthy is absolutely something the Democrats have proposed, but to say it’s purely a social policy and deserves no mention of any deleterious economic effects is not myopia, but utter blindness.
This thread has taken an AWESOME turn due to the mention of pie.
I know you don’t. But I also know it pisses the shit out of you every time someone conflates your desire to return to certain social mores of the '50s with a desire to return to the same level of racial discrimination. I’m pushing your buttons, and it’s working.
It has the basis in the reality of, “I like Democratic social policies, but not their economic ones.” When it’s a given that the social policies are approved of, presumably including all possible fallout, it’s no longer a valid point for debate. If you want to get your “the Democrats are retarded because they’re going to destroy the world” rocks off, you are welcome to do it someplace else. Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? I really, really don’t get it. I appreciate that social policies and economic ones are interconnected, but it’s completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. The person you should be talking to is the one who agrees with the Democrats socially and the Republicans economically–which is **not **me.
Review the bidding.
You hear that someone prefers the Democrats socially and the Republicans economically. You offer a “worst-case scenario” for the converse: the implementation of Democrats’ economic policies and Republican social policies. I cry foul at your biased, myopic attempt to craft a fair version of “worst-case” for each side. The basis of my complaint is that in pretending to craft a “worst-case” you handed us an impossible case: each set of policies is implemented tabula rasa, divorced from any fallout or consequence that’s not strictly and narrowly social (or economic) as the case may be.
You then go through astonishing contortions to justify the validity of your “worst case” offering, and throw insult after insult at me, hoping I’ll be distracted enough to start screaming at you and abandon the argument. (“Pushing my buttons,” perhaps?)
So how would you go about comparing it, then? Someone told me that they viewed the Republicans, per their beliefs, as the lesser of two evils: i.e., they must view a worst-case scenario of the implementation of Democratic economic policies as worse than the worst-case scenario of the implementation of Republican social policies. And that’s what threw me. That was the point, the entire raison d’etre of the entire fucking thread of discussion. The economic fallout from Democratic social policies is moot, because the person likes them–so they have no bearing on my understanding of why this person views Republicans as the lesser of two evils. The social fallout from Republican economic policies is moot, because the person likes them–so they have no bearing on my understanding of why this person views Republicans as the lesser of two evils.
This has never been about proving that Republicans are evil and Democrats are awesome (I don’t like either of them). This has been about my attempt to understand someone else’s point of view–someone else who’s apparently abandoned this thread. You came in and made it about you and your bandstanding about how the Democrats are going to ruin the country with their social policies. Social policies that were never under discussion, because they’re completely beside the point in this case. If this were a “worst-case Democrat” versus “worst-case Republican” scenario, you’d be entirely within your rights to take me to task for excluding the possibilities you’ve brought up–BUT THAT WAS NEVER WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. Never. Ever. Not one bit. It’s about the *worst-case aspect of the part of the Democrats that a particular poster dislikes *versus the worst-case aspect of the part of the Republicans that the same poster dislikes.
There is nothing dishonest about my criteria, because I DIDN’T ESTABLISH THEM. They were specified BY THE POSTER I WAS RESPONDING TO. This isn’t some comparison I just pulled out of thin air, because I thought it would have the best chance of making the Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad: it was based off of a specified set of preferences of someone else. I well and truly wanted to know what that poster thought would be the worst-case scenarios that made them decide that Democratic economic policies were more “evil” than Republican social ones. But they never had the courtesy to respond, and then you came in waving your “I don’t understand the premise, so you must be deliberately stacking the deck to make your side look better” dick around.
And I’ve been yelling at you because I literally cannot believe that you are truly this fucking retarded. Anybody else who’s still reading: am I completely off-base here? Did you get the point of the scenarios I’ve been setting up?
So is Scott Brown the antichrist or not?
Bob Barker, actually. Turns out having your pets spayed or neutered is the mark of the beast.
I thought it just meant you had marked beasts.
No, it stops your beasts from marking.
Nope.
Could you clarify? What, exactly, were you confused by?
The real problem here is that the person I was asking (Evil One? Evil something or other) never responded. So what started as an attempt to clarify the position of someone who liked Democratic social policies and Republican economic ones degenerated into someone who hates Democratic social *and *economic policies attacking me for not addressing everything they dislike about them.