A) I wasn't. You were overstating its importance.
B) T'wasn't a red herring. It's a real economic force. If you don't want to address it, fine, but then you're pretending your utopia's magic will last forever.
A) I wasn't. You were overstating its importance.I'd be preaching to the choir in here to say that computer tech now pervades nearly every aspect of life. We are, hopefully, all aware of the huge impact of the tech industry and what is has done for the economy both domestically and internationally over the last 25 years.
So why play dumb about its impact?
Regarding automation, nice red herring. I'll pass.
Actually, I do agree with many of their assertions and conclusions, Jhhnn.
The difference is that they present their findings in a non-partisan manner, and matter-of-factly. They don't whine about the right like some butthurt douche.
Perhaps you might even learn something from them?
Well then...we both don't own boots.Silly you! I own no boots, but I was thinking of those you suck up to!
Maybe next time you'll pick up what I'm throwing down.
I have already stated the necessity of public assistance in this thread. My contention is that it should be a cushion, not a couch. With few exceptions, public assistance should not be a perpetual benefit. Able bodied people should work, and if they can only manage a min-wage job they should work and get training to improve their lot in life.Why then have you denigrated the very idea of public assistance throughout this thread & whined about people being unworthy of it?
I didn't "crow" about anything, You claimed that their share fell by 25%. I merely pointed out that you were wrong, by quite a bit. At least you admit that now, even if it's somewhat reluctantly.They say more, even to the point of transferring capital down the scale & you say less. They've advocated more bargaining power for everyday Americans & you've always opposed unions, iirc, the only way people will get it. They point out that the lower 50% took the high hard one wrt share of national income & you crow over them gaining 2.6% in actual income over 40 years while the top 10% gained 231%.
But I'm the libruhl partisan & you're not a conservative partisan, even though you quack like one.
Of course. The importance of computer tech in today's society is overstated.A) I wasn't. You were overstating its importance.
It's a red herring in relation to the argument and OP. Do I really need to hyperlink what a red herring is?T'wasn't a red herring. It's a real economic force. If you don't want to address it, fine, but then you're pretending your utopia's magic will last forever.
I find your use of pedantry familiar.Of course. The importance of computer tech in today's society is overstated.
What alternate reality do you live in?
It's a red herring in relation to the argument and OP. Do I really need to hyperlink what a red herring is?
You would lose that argument.
You are a boot-licker. Licking the boots of the wealthy. Your desire to be obtuse is noted.Well then...we both don't own boots.
Seems like you made a useless post.
You found something? Congrats. You clearly didn't find the definition to red herring though. Maybe you should search desperately again for a meaningful response?I find your use of pedantry familiar.
lol. Your desperation is noted, but unsurprising.You are a boot-licker. Licking the boots of the wealthy. Your desire to be obtuse is noted.
I have already stated the necessity of public assistance in this thread. My contention is that it should be a cushion, not a couch. With few exceptions, public assistance should not be a perpetual benefit. Able bodies people should work, and if they can only manage a min-wage job they should work and get training to improve their lot in life.
I didn't "crow" about anything, You claimed that their share fell by 25%. I merely pointed out that you were wrong, by quite a bit. At least you admit that now, even if it's somewhat reluctantly.
Forty years ago, the top 1 percent of earners took home 10.5 percent of the total national income, and the bottom half earned 20 percent of it. By 2014, those percentages effectively flipped, with the top 1 percent earning a 20 percent share and the bottom half dropping to 12.5 percent.
I'm glad you have Jhhnn. I can't continue to engage with you.lol. Your desperation is noted, but unsurprising.
The wannabe attack dogs in here have devolved over the years. They used to be so much better.
TLC & I go way back.
These relationships are why some liberals feel the need to provide shelter for white nationalists.
Troll harder.
No, politics is being able to make the better argument that is either acknowledged, or bypassed.Being a conservative in america means participating in, apologizing for, or at least looking the other way for white nationalism. When you do this for decades it comes ingrained in people's nature; it's literally their culture. So when they write the PR copy that underlying political foundation is inherently reflected in the rhetoric.
He knows who Reagan was pandering to with "welfare queens" same as he knows who Trump was pandering to with "kenyan muslim" and so on. Everyone knows, even Jhhnn, but politics is the game of putting a better face on human narcissism.
Being a conservative in america means participating in, apologizing for, or at least looking the other way for white nationalism. When you do this for decades it comes ingrained in people's nature; it's literally their culture. So when they write the PR copy that underlying political foundation is inherently reflected in the rhetoric.
No, politics is being able to make the better argument that is either acknowledged, or bypassed.
By screaming "RACIST" at every conservative, you conveniently allow them to legitimately use the talking-point defense of "if I disagree with you, you call me a racist".
Your arguments aren't so much arguments, as accusations. And hence, not politics, but judgements. But, uh, keep on keepin' on I guess.
I do suppose when leaders (like yourself) of academic western enlightenment finally get it done, your sorts will require a larger share of the pie than the rest.
You aren't making a substantive argument, but are instead instantly accusing the people who you're arguing against of being a big bad racist that wants to lynch minorities and rape women.Between the two of us one is certainly playing the politics, and I'm just putting forth facts of the case. I choose to do so because it's an area where better people are guaranteed to win, rather than politics where liberals lose to degenerates all the time.
Also I think you know just as well as Jhhnn that enabling the anti civil rights vote is why we are where we are.
The academic western enlightenment brought about a better breed of people; you know, the sort who'd give up some of their pie instead of none.
You aren't making a substantive argument, but are instead instantly accusing the people who you're arguing against of being a big bad racist that wants to lynch minorities and rape women.
You don't get within half a mile of actual policy - what makes liberal policy good and conservative policy barbaric - because you're caught up with the whole, "you're a bigoty bigot-head name-calling" dance that we should leave to conservatives without a substantive argument to rest on.
Yes, young bucks, t-bone steaks and welfare queens = minorities/others.It's simple empirical fact that when Chicken & Reagan rant about welfare queens that's a clear signal to chucky types which side to vote for. They know that, and you + Jhhnn also know that, everyone knows that. But we play this game of hiding the plain facts and pretend it has much to do with policy, wouldn't want to upset the degens; that's the politics.
Liberals lose because they choose to play a game where facts don't matter and thus degeneracy has an inherent advantage. The only judgement worth making here is whether they deserve to lose.
Yes, young bucks, t-bone steaks and welfare queens = minorities/others.
The thing is, you know it, AND they know it. But they can forever and a day ignore that. No matter how much you yell at them or point it out.
Which means that while you're yelling at them, they just smirk, say it isn't racism, and get to dodge the entire substantive policy argument.
Solution: call them racists...and win political office from it!Seems to me they get quite a lot of help from the liberals who also insist on ignoring the basic underlying facts of how the world works to play politics poorly. You know, where we argue for 100 pages why evolution is the most solid scientific theory to degens only angling for the religious vote. Or 100 pages of econ to degens who will continue to successfully angle for the white nationalist vote. I'm sure one day all that blather will have some effect on people who never gave a shit about your libtard substance in the first place.
You aren't making a substantive argument, but are instead instantly accusing the people who you're arguing against of being a big bad racist that wants to lynch minorities and rape women.
You don't get within half a mile of actual policy - what makes liberal policy good and conservative policy barbaric - because you're caught up with the whole, "you're a bigoty bigot-head name-calling" dance that we should leave to conservatives without a substantive argument to rest on.