GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, I don't see why Notch subjects himself to them
[DOUBLEPOST=1464217560,1464217444][/DOUBLEPOST]
Being a billionaire means you literally have nothing to do that you don't want to do.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
[DOUBLEPOST=1464217560,1464217444][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yes, this Jessica person seems to be quite the asshole.
Notch is an asshole for defending himself from a collection of oversensitive people? I'm in bizzaro world.
No, he's an asshole for going out of his way to be a dick to whoever Mags is. Sometimes I forget just how backwards this forum can be.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, that is how I feel about this discussion.
I can see where someone such as Notch could be frustrated by these people's actions. It's exactly the sort of reason why people with that level of resources often end up shut into ivory towers, or even a castle populated only by cats.
As a person of lesser means, I may not like the idiots, but I am pushed back into contact with them regularly in order to survive. Notch has the option to just dismiss them entirely, and he uses it.
--Patrick
As a person of lesser means, I may not like the idiots, but I am pushed back into contact with them regularly in order to survive. Notch has the option to just dismiss them entirely, and he uses it.
--Patrick
If what he's said in the past is true, he has nothing better to do with his time because no one wants to be around him anymore. He said his social connections can't handle his lifestyle. I have no idea what that means.
I'd say this, combined with not having to give a fuck. How many fucks does he have to give to live with others? None. Despite all the public ridicule, etc, that he ever may accumulate, he's still a Billionaire. Kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes. No matter how much a fool he is at the end when the boy points out he's naked, the boy is still a boy, and the Emperor is still the Emperor.
Same with the money. Doesn't have to give a fuck, so doesn't. Engages for amusement. Or not.
That's how I felt, to be honest. What I should have said was "What a bunch of assholes".
I stumbled across this video today. I'm not well enough informed on the issue or really able to discuss it myself, but I thought it might make for a good talking point on here.
That's probably because you're not a multi-billionaire.
You know how it can be such a pain to plan a family reunion or a trip to the movies with your buddies because everyone has varying schedules and you have to find a time that works for everyone?
Well, when you're that rich, you run into this all the time, because unless you are going to subsidize everything your buddy needs for the rest of your life, they just aren't going to be able to run off with you every time you get it into your head to do something. And that leads to a situation where you don't have many friends/can't get new ones because other people just can't hang, and that gets frustrating and depressing really quickly.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
At this point, I'll be happy if they just include Johnson in the presidential debates.[DOUBLEPOST=1464710242,1464710127][/DOUBLEPOST]
Basically, the nomination is Hillary's unless the Obama justice department decides to indict her... and before the convention, at that. Which isn't going to happen.
Thing is, unfortunately, the superdelegates will make sure Bernie isn't the Democrat nominee, and it's too late to file as a candidate on another party's ticket now.
Basically, the nomination is Hillary's unless the Obama justice department decides to indict her... and before the convention, at that. Which isn't going to happen.
Dave
Staff member
I think a lot of the supers are going to switch. Maybe not enough to make a difference, but states are starting to vote out superdelegates (as in removing the option from their state party platform) and they are getting mighty nervous about her indictment. She doesn't need to be indicted before the convention, the supers just need to believe she will be and act accordingly.
GasBandit
Staff member
Been a lot of this going around the net lately:
It's supposed to be an argument against the old adage "America means everybody is allowed to enter the race, not everybody is entitled to win."
But it's bullshit. "Equality of result" is a toxic fairytale that cannot be achieved.
First of all, this picture makes the false assumption that the kids are entitled to see the baseball game they didn't pay for. There's a reason that fence wasn't chain link, and it wasn't because they hate toddlers but like freeloading teenagers. Remove enough "systemic barriers" in this fashion and baseball becomes unprofitable, and then nobody gets to watch the game because it doesn't get played.
So, that's the third panel.
But even the second panel is bullshit, kids.
Because if every kid who wants to is able to see easily over the fence, you know what the ballpark owners do? They start tidying up the boxes around their fences, thus, only Tallgangly McBlueshirt gets to watch the game.
But even that is just picking at semantics in a very bad example of an argument.
The real underlying inaccuracy here is that the argument being made is that circumstance dictates sucess, that some nebulous controlling party must be in charge of the boxes and how they are stacked (after all, why would Blueshirt even bother standing on the box unless he's been specifically told to do so, since it doesn't impact his field of vision?), and thus, the real message here is "people who aren't wealthy can only succeed if and only if government has them stand on more boxes, or takes such corrective actions that will end up making their success meaningless by ruining everything for everyone." Like all leftist numbskullery, it tells people that they aren't able to improve their situation on their own, until someone else (specifically government) solves their problem for them.
Plus, that toddler's going to fall off those boxes and break his skull. You ever stood on a 2x2 foot platform twice as tall as yourself?
It's supposed to be an argument against the old adage "America means everybody is allowed to enter the race, not everybody is entitled to win."
But it's bullshit. "Equality of result" is a toxic fairytale that cannot be achieved.
First of all, this picture makes the false assumption that the kids are entitled to see the baseball game they didn't pay for. There's a reason that fence wasn't chain link, and it wasn't because they hate toddlers but like freeloading teenagers. Remove enough "systemic barriers" in this fashion and baseball becomes unprofitable, and then nobody gets to watch the game because it doesn't get played.
So, that's the third panel.
But even the second panel is bullshit, kids.
Because if every kid who wants to is able to see easily over the fence, you know what the ballpark owners do? They start tidying up the boxes around their fences, thus, only Tallgangly McBlueshirt gets to watch the game.
But even that is just picking at semantics in a very bad example of an argument.
The real underlying inaccuracy here is that the argument being made is that circumstance dictates sucess, that some nebulous controlling party must be in charge of the boxes and how they are stacked (after all, why would Blueshirt even bother standing on the box unless he's been specifically told to do so, since it doesn't impact his field of vision?), and thus, the real message here is "people who aren't wealthy can only succeed if and only if government has them stand on more boxes, or takes such corrective actions that will end up making their success meaningless by ruining everything for everyone." Like all leftist numbskullery, it tells people that they aren't able to improve their situation on their own, until someone else (specifically government) solves their problem for them.
Plus, that toddler's going to fall off those boxes and break his skull. You ever stood on a 2x2 foot platform twice as tall as yourself?
Well when people start paying attention to Libertarians, those poll numbers will go down, as they learn that Libertarians think children should be allowed to try heroin:
Nevermind the stripping.
Libertarians can't shed the cliches, and a lot of that is because they are the stereotypes.
Like it or not, most Americans (and most people) like protecting children from things they feel they are not adult enough to address, including drugs, sex, and eating habits. People want to have some licensing system for cars. They overwhelmingly like the Civil Rights Act.
Or that they boo at the suggestion that driver's licenses and the Civil Rights Act are a good idea.Slate said:
Nevermind the stripping.
Libertarians can't shed the cliches, and a lot of that is because they are the stereotypes.
Like it or not, most Americans (and most people) like protecting children from things they feel they are not adult enough to address, including drugs, sex, and eating habits. People want to have some licensing system for cars. They overwhelmingly like the Civil Rights Act.
Its more like there are three kids who are the same height, and one kid has been given all of the boxes for years while the other two are forbidden from getting boxes. However, now that the other two are allowed to have boxes the kid who has all the boxes from the many years of being given them exclusively says "what? how is this unfair? you have the same chance to have boxes as me." Of course, the other two children actually are still given boxes disproportionately less frequently than the one who had been receiving boxes for years.
This is the kind of thing that is going to get you booed at your party's convention.
GasBandit
Staff member
Let's not pretend that the two "main" parties don't have their own exemplary stereotypes. This is not a disqualification.[DOUBLEPOST=1464746343,1464746257][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, when the Box authority has, at the point of a gun, made sure that every child gets 0.0023 boxes and manages to drive baseball out of business at the same time, I'm sure we'll all be living in a wonderful socialist utopia.
I would argue that the stereotypes of those parties are far more common in voters, and therefore more palatable, than the stereotypes of Libertarians.
GasBandit
Staff member
Which ones, these ones?
Or this one?
And, btw, the poster child of the article you linked, Vermin Supreme, ran as a Republican in 2008 and a Democrat in 2012.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's true. Americans, for all their rhetoric, hate and fear freedom and liberty because it comes with responsibility. As long as they have inexpensive sweet food and something inane to watch on TV, they can hardly be bothered to worry about who is controlling every aspect of their lives.
Ideally, I'd prefer to find some way to return this country (or better yet, the world) to sanity that doesn't require me to either die or kill people. Or both.
--Patrick
Yes, those ones.Which ones, these ones?
Or this one?
And, btw, the poster child of the article you linked, Vermin Supreme, ran as a Republican in 2008 and a Democrat in 2012.
The stereotypes of 'angry about racism and misogyny' and 'angry about waning strength and advantage' are much more common and palatable than 'children should have all the rights afforded an adult, including drug use, which by the way should be unregulated.'
Vermin Supreme is really beside the point - Perry and McAfee and the mismanagement of the convention are enough to show that party is unprofessional and in disarray. But to me, that relatively moderate statements like, "I think the state does have a role in driver's licenses," get booed is much more telling.
That's the only reason? I don't even think that's one of the reasons. I would argue people who like to think for themselves make all sorts of different decisions, including supporting the two dominant parties of the US.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, we can both cross our fingers, but I'm not hopeful.
I find Trigglypuff a much more insidious thing because somewhere it might actually have an effect on someone's decision making process, however minimal, whereas "children should be able to try heroin" is so patently ridiculous as to be dismissed laughingly out of hand.
The thing about this is, the president is not a king, and electing a libertarian president does not mean the government is automatically disbanded. There's still a system in place, with checks and balances - despite the best efforts of President Obama
I don't entertain any real expectation of Johnson winning the election. As I said, I'd be happy enough just with him being included (no doubt begrudgingly) in the debates, so that the Libertarian platform can get out there and get talked about, and perhaps people will start realizing the only reason there's only two choices every election is because they think that. And maybe more people would want to join the party, so that the concentrated mass of cast-off lunatics who are squatting in it now might get a bit diluted.
I can't blame people for thinking it's two parties and only two parties when at debates and such those two parties treat any other party as an illegal presence to be kept away by security. I hope there's a way for that to change this time.
Will the party establishment who were adamant in not supporting Trump when there was any other option have the courage to stand up for that, or will they fall in line like good little Party members. My money's on the latter.
