New Testingstan

i await the day raynor reposts reddit comments to make fun of them

is that the day of the end of times?

no it's just another personal milestone in raynor's life

praise the 108 page gospel to clean living

he's probably a regular cracked reader

uraniun235 wrote:he's probably a regular cracked reader

the gravest of insults

Ah, it all becomes clear. He *had* to attack it because, you see, he read it, and he read some of the comments, and they were taking it *seriously*.

God, Raynor is such a fucking tool.

Even when I'm casual and easy going he jumps straight to attack.

I don't know why he cares so much if people don't like the prequels. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Someone else not liking RoTS doesn't make the movie terrible and all of a sudden you're legally required to hate it. Just let it go. He's going to give himself a fucking aneurism

Darksi4190 wrote:I don't know why he cares so much if people don't like the prequels. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Someone else not liking RoTS doesn't make the movie terrible and all of a sudden you're legally required to hate it. Just let it go. He's going to give himself a fucking aneurism

nerds are insecure and need people to like the same things they do

Zod wrote:
nerds are insecure and need people to like the same things they do

and how

Surlethe wrote:Speaking of farmers in the Depression, as a rule of thumb, about half of FDR's policies worked brilliantly (bank holiday, go off gold, devalue the dollar, etc.) and half did more damage than good (cartelization, unionization, buying food and destroying it to drive up prices). The administration was correct in its assessment that the proximate problem was falling prices (in fact, falling nominal income), and they tried a lot of things to fix it. The monetary policy worked, the regulatory policy didn't. (Usual disclaimer about tentative claims, yadda yadda yadda.)

remember when surlethe was actually a social democrat?

Vaguely.

Zod wrote:

Darksi4190 wrote:I don't know why he cares so much if people don't like the prequels. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Someone else not liking RoTS doesn't make the movie terrible and all of a sudden you're legally required to hate it. Just let it go. He's going to give himself a fucking aneurism

nerds are insecure and need people to like the same things they do

at the risk of playing armchair psychologist, maybe he has a persecution complex

Stofsk wrote:

Zod wrote:

Darksi4190 wrote:I don't know why he cares so much if people don't like the prequels. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Someone else not liking RoTS doesn't make the movie terrible and all of a sudden you're legally required to hate it. Just let it go. He's going to give himself a fucking aneurism

nerds are insecure and need people to like the same things they do

at the risk of playing armchair psychologist, maybe he has a persecution complex

that doesn't really discount my version

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:

Surlethe wrote:Speaking of farmers in the Depression, as a rule of thumb, about half of FDR's policies worked brilliantly (bank holiday, go off gold, devalue the dollar, etc.) and half did more damage than good (cartelization, unionization, buying food and destroying it to drive up prices). The administration was correct in its assessment that the proximate problem was falling prices (in fact, falling nominal income), and they tried a lot of things to fix it. The monetary policy worked, the regulatory policy didn't. (Usual disclaimer about tentative claims, yadda yadda yadda.)

remember when surlethe was actually a social democrat?

was he actually or is your memory colored by ~the echo chamber~?


i'm not being snarky, i seriously can't remember whether or not he actually identified as a social democrat or if he just didn't disagree very often with the social democrats on the board

uraniun235 wrote:or if he just didn't disagree very often with the social democrats on the board

I think it's moar this one.

Or maybe he has a somewhat realistic view of the effects of Roosevelt's policies...deflation isn't a BAD thing, necessarily, unless a significant portion of the populace is buying things like, oh I don't know, HOUSES and FARMSTEADS and COMBINES on credit. Deflation in that case can hugely increase marginal cost to unsustainable levels, which if combined with a few years of bad harvests can wreck any farm that's in a debt hole. Hello Dust Bowl! Paging Tom Joad!

Being a "social democrat," whatever that is, doesn't mean you forget how to perform basic arithmetic. I also think it's funny how Baks can turn Surly's complimentary comments about the Progressives' Progressive into "he useta be an okay guy, but now he's a jackhole!"

Zod wrote:

Stofsk wrote:

Zod wrote:

Darksi4190 wrote:I don't know why he cares so much if people don't like the prequels. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Someone else not liking RoTS doesn't make the movie terrible and all of a sudden you're legally required to hate it. Just let it go. He's going to give himself a fucking aneurism

nerds are insecure and need people to like the same things they do

at the risk of playing armchair psychologist, maybe he has a persecution complex

that doesn't really discount my version

concession accepted

/TEO

Qui-Gon was completely short-changed in Ep. I to set the stage for the whole "Obi-Wan great warrior who kicked ass but couldn't control his apprentice so he had to de-limb and fricassee him to cover up his failure THIS IS TRAGEDY" epic story arc. Liam Neeson getting shafted out of Episodes II and III pissed me off more than Jar-Jar or fucking E.T. screaming "Vote Now!"

uraniun235 wrote:

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:

Surlethe wrote:Speaking of farmers in the Depression, as a rule of thumb, about half of FDR's policies worked brilliantly (bank holiday, go off gold, devalue the dollar, etc.) and half did more damage than good (cartelization, unionization, buying food and destroying it to drive up prices). The administration was correct in its assessment that the proximate problem was falling prices (in fact, falling nominal income), and they tried a lot of things to fix it. The monetary policy worked, the regulatory policy didn't. (Usual disclaimer about tentative claims, yadda yadda yadda.)

remember when surlethe was actually a social democrat?

was he actually or is your memory colored by ~the echo chamber~?


i'm not being snarky, i seriously can't remember whether or not he actually identified as a social democrat or if he just didn't disagree very often with the social democrats on the board

i was trying to feed people a straight line here

where somebody would have gone "never" or the like

because he was only at best a wussy center-keynesian and has gone to being somewhat of a right-keynesian while still holding (in my opinion, which is correct) contradictory socially liberal views

guess he really did end up following gregory mankiw after all

Count Chocula wrote:Or maybe he has a somewhat realistic view of the effects of Roosevelt's policies...deflation isn't a BAD thing, necessarily, unless a significant portion of the populace is buying things like, oh I don't know, HOUSES and FARMSTEADS and COMBINES on credit. Deflation in that case can hugely increase marginal cost to unsustainable levels, which if combined with a few years of bad harvests can wreck any farm that's in a debt hole. Hello Dust Bowl! Paging Tom Joad!

Being a "social democrat," whatever that is, doesn't mean you forget how to perform basic arithmetic. I also think it's funny how Baks can turn Surly's complimentary comments about the Progressives' Progressive into "he useta be an okay guy, but now he's a jackhole!"

you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything

also anyone who opposes unions without being independently wealthy is literally a class traitor

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything

also anyone who opposes unions without being independently wealthy is literally a class traitor

Go try to sell that line to the 2008 GM bond holders, tough guy. I bet one or two of them were union workers. Or better yet, try the whole "class traitor" schtick where "class" is a reality and not a creation of the media; some place like Argentina, Mexico, India or the Middle East. I'm curious: what does "literally a class traitor" mean? If I grew up poor and now can afford a house and fresh food, am I a traitor to the poor? If I win the Lotto, blow the millions on whores and bad investments, and wind up back in the median income range, am I then a traitor to the rich? You're writing nonsense.

Count Chocula wrote:

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything

also anyone who opposes unions without being independently wealthy is literally a class traitor

Go try to sell that line to the 2008 GM bond holders, tough guy. I bet one or two of them were union workers. Or better yet, try the whole "class traitor" schtick where "class" is a reality and not a creation of the media; some place like Argentina, Mexico, India or the Middle East. I'm curious: what does "literally a class traitor" mean? If I grew up poor and now can afford a house and fresh food, am I a traitor to the poor? If I win the Lotto, blow the millions on whores and bad investments, and wind up back in the median income range, am I then a traitor to the rich? You're writing nonsense.

lololololol boo berry

you really think that there's no such thing as social class in america?

really?

and yet you use phrases like rich and poor?

ahahahahahahahahaha

guess what?

communism is the light

So I've been browsing this thread on TEO. This is really a question that's gone to 3 pages?

The best overall military in WWII is the military that WON WWII. That wasn't France, England, Germany, Japan or Russia. It was surprise surprise .

Shit, Einie's right, TEO's intellectual crucible has turned the landscape into a desert.

OH BTW Baks, "rich" and "poor" are measures of income and assets. Do quote unquote rich people have more opportunity for education, refinement, and so on? Yes. But those arbitrary classifications and hence opportunities for improvement are far more fungible in the US than elsewhere; IIRC, about half of today's Forbes 400 were median income earners 20 years ago.

Besides, the word "treason" implies some amorphous obligation to others in the same income range. No such obligation exists.

The light of Communism has blinded you, you fool. And of course you're absolutely serious about communism is the light, see I'm taking you Reagan Evil Empire speech seriously.


lol,lo,lol Baksie-poo. You're such a kidder.

itt chocks doesn't know anything about history

surprise surprise