Jump to content

Do Y'all Ever Read The Stupidity Posted In LOF??? Check Out Dopey "Renegade"!


Recommended Posts

Here's @Renegade's "brilliant" plan: 

 

I caught part of an interesting episode of Freakonomics on NPR today.  I'd link it, but I don't see it on their podcast page yet.  They were talking about focusing on gross national happiness (GNH) instead of GDP.   We could bring our environmental impact down to sustainable levels while maintaining or even improving individual satisfaction.  They said that we need to realize that success doesn't mean perpetual economic growth.  The main point was that the Earth can't support infinite growth.  More growth drains more resources and releases more carbon.  Bottom line:  unfocused economic growth is bad for the environment.

 

This is a new (for me) way of looking at things.  The concept immediately made sense.  I understand that (trivial example) a hug could make a person happier than a new cell phone even though it wouldn't show up in GDP growth.  But, I'm having a hard time understanding how this would work. 

 

(You can keep your hug; How about hot female sex slaves available any time anywhere for free?)

 

One suggestion mentioned on the podcast was that if we distributed income more fairly, we wouldn't need as much. 

 

(Or, I could just burglar your home so you don't have as much unneeded cash, jewelry and stuff to make you sad)

 

This is where I start to get confused.   Dollars aren't consumption.  Consumption is the driver for resource requirements.  When Bezos (and his ilk) take an oversized share of income, then that should actually depress consumption and reduce environmental impact.  

 

When someone like Bezos spends $250 million to buy a business (Washington Post, for example) that spending doesn't create any additional strain on the environment.  On the other hand, if I give a homeless person $20, they're likely to buy something like a sweater or a meal.  As much as they deserve and need that, there is environmental impact.

 

(You can't make this shit up, folks - only in the Communists Only Room, where @SpyCar panders to this kind of utopian communist stupidity.)

 

If Bezos distributed all his money to the nation's poorest people, those poor people would spend most of that money on consumption. 

 

(No shit Sherlock)

 

That's a major point made by liberal economists who argue that wealth redistribution would boost the economy.  But, wouldn't that also increase environmental impact?   Income inequality is bad for many reasons, but I don't see it as bad for the environment.  If anything, it reduces the need for resources by restraining much of the population from consuming.

 

(Since when is "wealth redistribution" liberal and NOT communist?)

 

Another thing they mentioned was the possibility of focusing economic and scientific development on environmentally beneficial goals such as more efficient transportation.  OK.  At the expense of what?  Will we restrict access to environmentally impactful consumer goods such as cell phones and disposable diapers?  

 

(Pete Buttigeig knows all about 2-way anal transportation - that's why Biden appointed him the Transportation Czar)

 

I love the concept of focusing on happiness ....

 

(What a faggot!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

All the leftards are like this.

They hold back on this forum.  So, I have to go into the LOF and mine for some of their fruit-loopy, enviro-sexual, hug-a-bum views of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, king of the county said:

I get kicked out every time i go there 

I don't waste my time actually posting in LO.  I drag their bullshit over her and then call their sissy-punk asses out on it.  Hey @Renegade, where are you?  Come defend your communist hug-a-bum bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dontlooknow said:

I saw it on joe rogan the other day. Yeah the cons don't want people happy. Just wage slaves. 

 

Spoken like a true Government fed parasite.

 

Taxpayers - are already Wage Slaves... to Communist malcontents like you.

 

Ha!

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Skans said:

I don't waste my time actually posting in LO.  I drag their bullshit over her and then call their sissy-punk asses out on it.  Hey @Renegade, where are you?  Come defend your communist hug-a-bum bullshit.

 

OK.  You've got my attention.  What can I do for you?   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Skans said:

Here's @Renegade's "brilliant" plan: 

 

I caught part of an interesting episode of Freakonomics on NPR today.  I'd link it, but I don't see it on their podcast page yet.  They were talking about focusing on gross national happiness (GNH) instead of GDP.   We could bring our environmental impact down to sustainable levels while maintaining or even improving individual satisfaction.  They said that we need to realize that success doesn't mean perpetual economic growth.  The main point was that the Earth can't support infinite growth.  More growth drains more resources and releases more carbon.  Bottom line:  unfocused economic growth is bad for the environment.

 

This is a new (for me) way of looking at things.  The concept immediately made sense.  I understand that (trivial example) a hug could make a person happier than a new cell phone even though it wouldn't show up in GDP growth.  But, I'm having a hard time understanding how this would work. 

 

(You can keep your hug; How about hot female sex slaves available any time anywhere for free?)

 

One suggestion mentioned on the podcast was that if we distributed income more fairly, we wouldn't need as much. 

 

(Or, I could just burglar your home so you don't have as much unneeded cash, jewelry and stuff to make you sad)

 

This is where I start to get confused.   Dollars aren't consumption.  Consumption is the driver for resource requirements.  When Bezos (and his ilk) take an oversized share of income, then that should actually depress consumption and reduce environmental impact.  

 

When someone like Bezos spends $250 million to buy a business (Washington Post, for example) that spending doesn't create any additional strain on the environment.  On the other hand, if I give a homeless person $20, they're likely to buy something like a sweater or a meal.  As much as they deserve and need that, there is environmental impact.

 

(You can't make this shit up, folks - only in the Communists Only Room, where @SpyCar panders to this kind of utopian communist stupidity.)

 

If Bezos distributed all his money to the nation's poorest people, those poor people would spend most of that money on consumption. 

 

(No shit Sherlock)

 

That's a major point made by liberal economists who argue that wealth redistribution would boost the economy.  But, wouldn't that also increase environmental impact?   Income inequality is bad for many reasons, but I don't see it as bad for the environment.  If anything, it reduces the need for resources by restraining much of the population from consuming.

 

(Since when is "wealth redistribution" liberal and NOT communist?)

 

Another thing they mentioned was the possibility of focusing economic and scientific development on environmentally beneficial goals such as more efficient transportation.  OK.  At the expense of what?  Will we restrict access to environmentally impactful consumer goods such as cell phones and disposable diapers?  

 

(Pete Buttigeig knows all about 2-way anal transportation - that's why Biden appointed him the Transportation Czar)

 

I love the concept of focusing on happiness ....

 

(What a faggot!)

 

17 hours ago, RayDonavin said:

All the leftards are like this.

Economic retardism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

OK.  You've got my attention.  What can I do for you?   

 

 

Do for me? I do not require anything of you.  However, if you would like to defend your weird praise of "Gross National Happiness" (perhaps an NPR special or something) as opposed to freedom and capitalism (freedom to make your own way in life, your own wealth and to spend it as you please), by all means feel free to do so. 

 

Fair warning, however, this is not LOF - a safe harbor for liberals and communists (goes both ways, I know).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skans said:

Do for me? I do not require anything of you.  However, if you would like to defend your weird praise of "Gross National Happiness" (perhaps an NPR special or something) as opposed to freedom and capitalism (freedom to make your own way in life, your own wealth and to spend it as you please), by all means feel free to do so. 

 

Fair warning, however, this is not LOF - a safe harbor for liberals and communists (goes both ways, I know).

 

I made that post because this theory is interesting and new to me, plus there are parts of it that don't seem to add up.  For example, income redistribution probably would not be good for the environment.  I was hoping to have a discussion with folks who know more about it than I do.  It's possible I just don't understand it well enough.  But, there's not much activity on that forum these days.

 

The part I was praising is the idea that a nation's success should be measured by the happiness of it's citizens, not the size of its GDP.   Often it seems that GDP has become a goal in its own right.  Instead, GDP should be seen as a tool to 'pay' for whatever makes our citizens happy.  We spend our resources on any number of priorities (military, welfare, education, individual consumption, research, etc.) so secure the happiness of our citizens.   Massive resources (GDP) are of no use if we waste those resources on the wrong priorities.  

 

If you accept that, then the next point is that we could be happier without increasing our use of resources if we spend those resources more efficiently.  In this context, I'd define efficiency as happiness per unit of resources consumed.  I think that's what the NPR folks are saying:  don't grow blindly; grow efficiently.   

 

All of the above should be acceptable logic to both liberals and conservatives.  The rub comes when you start asking different people what makes them happy.   Consider electricity generation.   Imagine that a coal plant is cheaper than a solar plant.  One person would say:  "we will be happier with solar since our environment will be cleaner".  Another person might say:  "we will be happier with coal since our bills will be lower".  

 

To me, that makes the whole 'degrowth' theory moot.  Different definitions of happiness are the main reason some people are liberal and some are conservative.  We already have a good system for deciding these differences:  elections.  

  • Thumb up 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 5:20 PM, Renegade said:

The part I was praising is the idea that a nation's success should be measured by the happiness of it's citizens, not the size of its GDP. 

It is this statement which I took issue with, enough so that I dragged your post over here to discuss.  First, a person's "happiness" is highly subjective and resides 100% with the individual to determine what makes him or her happy.  Here are but a few examples of what makes people happy - even if only for a short period of time:

  • Accumulation of wealth so they can feel secure that their needs and wants will be fulfilled.
  • Accumulation of wealth for power over others - this does make some people happy.
  • Politically derived power over others
  • Fame - this seems to be a huge driving force among people aged 5 to 25.  Look how this age group relies so heavily on youtube fame, Instagram likes, etc. 
  • Things - yes, things make people happy.  Collections, cars, houses, guns, clothing, shoes, art - I could go on and on, but people definitely derive happiness from things.
  • Freedom - freedom to travel, to take care of yourself, to do what you want when you want  - that makes people happy
  • Sports - some people derive happiness from participating and/or watching sporting events.........., unless their side loses.
  • Recreational Drug use - this provides a lot of happiness to huge numbers of people, even if the happiness is somewhat temporary.  I suppose, given that no one lives forever, such bursts of happiness have quite a lot of value to some individuals
  • Sex - Many people are happiest when they are engaged in sexual activity.
  • Gambling - some people would blissfully gamble their lives away and be quite happy about it.
  • Murder & Torture - Not many, but a few individuals find extreme happiness and pleasure in murdering others.
  • Doing "good" for others - There are those who take pleasure in making the lives of others a little better.

I could go on and on, likely forever as people find new and exciting ways to find happiness.  Notice, however, that I neglected to include one category which most people might include - "Family".   I have to ask, does Family make most people happy?  Some people may find a certain satisfaction with belonging to a family, but do they gain happiness from their Family?  I think some do.  And, I think others receive more grief from family than happiness.

 

In any event, I think it is best to realize that an individual's happiness may not be important to anyone else, is not really anyone else's responsibility, and in many instances may not even be good for society at large.  In our country, we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, so long as it does not infringe on other people's rights as enumerated by the Constitution.  At this time, I think it is appropriate to note that there is no enumerated right to health, to housing, to education, to food or to any of these things which Communists like to pretend they have some kind of "right" to. 

 

On 12/18/2020 at 5:20 PM, Renegade said:

 Often it seems that GDP has become a goal in its own right. 

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is but one indicator of a country's economic health.  It tends to go hand in hand with the availability of work inside of a country and the ability of the individuals and companies who reside within that country to make stuff that others need or desire to have.   It's simply one, of many, economic measurements.  

 

However, in your discussion you artificially treat GDP as if it was the end-all be-all which all countries must strive for in order to be judged worthwhile.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  It's just one economic measure, just like P/E, P/B,ROI, Yield, EBITDA, Quick Ratio, etc are economic measures of individual businesses.

On 12/18/2020 at 5:20 PM, Renegade said:

All of the above should be acceptable logic to both liberals and conservatives. 

There is no logic whatsoever in what you say.  Not one bit.  First, you do not even understand what GDP is, how it is used or in what context it is important.  Until you grasp the principles of economics and finance, we are at a non-starter in this discussion.  You sound foolish and naive to people educated in these disciplines when you attempt to use (misuse) such terms.

 

Another place where your logic breaks down is in thinking that an outside body, like government, is useful in increasing a person's happiness, let alone the happiness of all individuals.

 

Further, your logic breaks down as I indicated above, in that a person's "happiness" may be a terrible thing for society.  If all you want to do is make people happy, then force them to copious amounts of Heroin until they quickly die.  Their lives will be short, meaningless, but overall, rather blissful. 

On 12/18/2020 at 5:20 PM, Renegade said:

The rub comes when you start asking different people what makes them happy.   

That's not "the rub" - that is the crux of the discussion, a fundamental breakdown of your logic, actually disproving your premise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 2:20 PM, Renegade said:

The part I was praising is the idea that a nation's success should be measured by the happiness of it's citizens, not the size of its GDP. 

 

This makes Adult American Citizens happy...

 

- Adult AMERICA -

 

"You have the Unalienable Right to Fail,

...and Start Anew.

 

You have the Unalienable Right to Starve to Death,

(if you don't Freeze to Death in Winter first)


...if that is Your Free Will,

...and the Product of Your Labor."

 

- Blue Devil -

 

 

we-are-not-all-socialists-now.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tunafish said:

Anyone can look. 

Anyone can click-copy-click-paste dragging their bullshit over here and call them out on it too!  They think they have their own little fiefdom over there ruled by @SpyCar, where they pretend to be civil and courteous to one another, thinking they are immune from the dregs who are forced to reside only in NHB.

 

Its quite like how I like to imagine genuine communism.  Everyone working together to produce what is needed by the community - no police; no guns, just peace and productivity.  All the while, the Anarchist wolf pack watches and studies these communists from their makeshift dens just outside the edge of civilization, taking notes, analyzing movements, calculating productivity curves, assessing weaknesses and strategizing the optimum procedure to take and devour that which Natural Law generously provides for the Wolf Pack.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 12:16 AM, Skans said:

They hold back on this forum.  So, I have to go into the LOF and mine for some of their fruit-loopy, enviro-sexual, hug-a-bum views of the world.

 

To (roughly) quote Mr. Spock: 'It is far easier for civilized men to act like barbarians, than for barbarians to behave as civilized men'.

 

LO is actually pretty solid proof that libruls are actually capable of serious discussions when they don't have RWNJs interrupting with insults and 'LOL LIBRULS R SO DUMMMMM' over and over, while RWNJs are exactly the same no matter what. This is because most RWNJs just like going on and on about how much they hate libs, how evil libs are, ridiculous conspiracies, gossip about politicians' personal lives, etc... there are no ideas or worthwhile topics of discussion, it's all just madness and outrage and violence and delusions.

 

A conservatives-only forum would be pretty much exactly the same as this one.

You just can't help yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

To (roughly) quote Mr. Spock: 'It is far easier for civilized men to act like barbarians, than for barbarians to behave as civilized men'.

 

LO is actually pretty solid proof that libruls are actually capable of serious discussions when they don't have RWNJs interrupting with insults and 'LOL LIBRULS R SO DUMMMMM' over and over, while RWNJs are exactly the same no matter what. This is because most RWNJs just like going on and on about how much they hate libs, how evil libs are, ridiculous conspiracies, gossip about politicians' personal lives, etc... there are no ideas or worthwhile topics of discussion, it's all just madness and outrage and violence and delusions.

 

A conservatives-only forum would be pretty much exactly the same as this one.

You just can't help yourselves.

So, you do not approve of my mining boogers from LOF and put them on display over here for discussion.  Well, how can you call yourself "enlightened", then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skans said:

So, you do not approve of my mining boogers from LOF and put them on display over here for discussion.  Well, how can you call yourself "enlightened", then?

 

How did you become so starved for hatred that you actually need to try to drag down people who are just minding their own business?

Not getting enough of a fix from the normal everyday librul-hate porn on this sub?

 

If you take a break and come back later, you'll be less desensitized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 8:37 AM, Skans said:

Here's @Renegade's "brilliant" plan: 

 

I caught part of an interesting episode of Freakonomics on NPR today.  I'd link it, but I don't see it on their podcast page yet.  They were talking about focusing on gross national happiness (GNH) instead of GDP.   We could bring our environmental impact down to sustainable levels while maintaining or even improving individual satisfaction.  They said that we need to realize that success doesn't mean perpetual economic growth.  The main point was that the Earth can't support infinite growth.  More growth drains more resources and releases more carbon.  Bottom line:  unfocused economic growth is bad for the environment.

 

This is a new (for me) way of looking at things.  The concept immediately made sense.  I understand that (trivial example) a hug could make a person happier than a new cell phone even though it wouldn't show up in GDP growth.  But, I'm having a hard time understanding how this would work. 

 

(You can keep your hug; How about hot female sex slaves available any time anywhere for free?)

 

One suggestion mentioned on the podcast was that if we distributed income more fairly, we wouldn't need as much. 

 

(Or, I could just burglar your home so you don't have as much unneeded cash, jewelry and stuff to make you sad)

 

This is where I start to get confused.   Dollars aren't consumption.  Consumption is the driver for resource requirements.  When Bezos (and his ilk) take an oversized share of income, then that should actually depress consumption and reduce environmental impact.  

 

When someone like Bezos spends $250 million to buy a business (Washington Post, for example) that spending doesn't create any additional strain on the environment.  On the other hand, if I give a homeless person $20, they're likely to buy something like a sweater or a meal.  As much as they deserve and need that, there is environmental impact.

 

(You can't make this shit up, folks - only in the Communists Only Room, where @SpyCar panders to this kind of utopian communist stupidity.)

 

If Bezos distributed all his money to the nation's poorest people, those poor people would spend most of that money on consumption. 

 

(No shit Sherlock)

 

That's a major point made by liberal economists who argue that wealth redistribution would boost the economy.  But, wouldn't that also increase environmental impact?   Income inequality is bad for many reasons, but I don't see it as bad for the environment.  If anything, it reduces the need for resources by restraining much of the population from consuming.

 

(Since when is "wealth redistribution" liberal and NOT communist?)

 

Another thing they mentioned was the possibility of focusing economic and scientific development on environmentally beneficial goals such as more efficient transportation.  OK.  At the expense of what?  Will we restrict access to environmentally impactful consumer goods such as cell phones and disposable diapers?  

 

(Pete Buttigeig knows all about 2-way anal transportation - that's why Biden appointed him the Transportation Czar)

 

I love the concept of focusing on happiness ....

 

(What a faggot!)

 

same conclusion I come to when reading your posts in BLM forum which sissified Admin did away with

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toldya said:

How did you become so starved for hatred that you actually need to try to drag down people who are just minding their own business?

 

Your remarks here show how you are spoiled by this website's biased, Liberalism, as this Chinese portal has gall to give you Liberal Lunatics your very own safe space where your anti-USA, anti-Trump harlequinades cannot be challenged by truths and facts. So the member had no choice but to bring those nonsensical remarks here, for criticizing, in light of the collusion this website owner burdens Repubs with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

How did you become so starved for hatred that you actually need to try to drag down people who are just minding their own business?

Not getting enough of a fix from the normal everyday librul-hate porn on this sub?

 

If you take a break and come back later, you'll be less desensitized.

Hey buddy, don't stroke out over this discussion.  If people wanted to "mind their own business", then they would whittle wooden duck decoys in their back yard, not write things in these forums.  Let's try to keep things real, shall we.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...