By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bofferbrauer2 on 18 July 2025
xboxgreen said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Now explain to me how things that have zero effect on food prices like welfare and housing would have any effect on food prices. As for the food for food stamps, less than point one percent of all the food in the US are used in this program, so removing those would have no real measurable effect on the prices.

If you remove social programs the government provides you won't see the price of products go up artificially.

For example, if you give me welfare I will have more money to spend on products like food. Therefore driving up the demand artificially and causing inflation.

Again, like I said, less than 0.1% of the food produced in the US goes towards food stamps. Removing this would have absolutely zero effect on food prices as the demand is near zero compared to the entire market and would just result in people literally dying of hunger in the richest country in the world.

And like @zorg1000 explained, farmers themselves are heavily subsidized, which is also a kind of social program btw. And since you suggest cutting social programs, you can be damn sure that would increase the prices due to removing the heavy subsidizing of the entire agrarian sector.



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 18 July 2025
shavenferret said:

Look, i just said that a certain group of people are intelligent and the liberals are jumping all over me and hurting my precious feelings. I don't have to have a overreaching goal here, i can make my points as I please. The journey is the goal, not to have my various viewpoints (pro-israel, pro-ukraine, pro-capitalist, anti-MAGA) win or anything. This is just the internet. If you don't like my opinions, there are plenty of other threads to enjoy.

Hmm, why do you believe they are liberals just because they questioned your statement.  Do you have to be liberal in questioning something that you feel is correct instead of actually being correct.  It is your opinion right, so why does it have anything to do with a political affinity or are you saying your opinion is the standard conservative or other political viewpoint thus if you do not agree with your opinion you must be liberal.  Just wondering why you are equating your opinion as if it leans a certain political way or maybe you are not being honest and you do have an ulterior motive.



Machiavellian on 18 July 2025
xboxgreen said:
sundin13 said:

If welfare spending is offset by increases in taxation, the amount of available cash for spending is equalized, therefore offsetting increases in demand from welfare with decreases in demand from taxation. 

So, just tax the rich. Easy enough.

Also makes it kind of hilarious that Trump cut taxes for the rich when we're still fighting to get out of one of the worst inflationary periods in recent memory. His economic sense is questionable...

Taxing the rich means taxing the middle class. The rich own all the assets and won't give up their life styles or in the case of companies hurt their investors. They will resort to tactics like raising products/services prices, layoffs/outsourcing, wage stagnation, etc. 

Lol, so why were they not doing that during the Clinton years.  Man you just be making up a bunch of stuff without a shred of any examples to show for it.  You might as well say you are using tarot cards for your opinion.



shavenferret on 18 July 2025
Machiavellian said:
shavenferret said:

Look, i just said that a certain group of people are intelligent and the liberals are jumping all over me and hurting my precious feelings. I don't have to have a overreaching goal here, i can make my points as I please. The journey is the goal, not to have my various viewpoints (pro-israel, pro-ukraine, pro-capitalist, anti-MAGA) win or anything. This is just the internet. If you don't like my opinions, there are plenty of other threads to enjoy.

Hmm, why do you believe they are liberals just because they questioned your statement.  Do you have to be liberal in questioning something that you feel is correct instead of actually being correct.  It is your opinion right, so why does it have anything to do with a political affinity or are you saying your opinion is the standard conservative or other political viewpoint thus if you do not agree with your opinion you must be liberal.  Just wondering why you are equating your opinion as if it leans a certain political way or maybe you are not being honest and you do have an ulterior motive.

It is quite interesting that someone calling themselves Machivellian is suspicious about an ulterior motive.  What kind of bad motive could I have?  Do you think i'm with the JDF or something like that?  Man, i'm just giving my 2 cents.  You don't have to agree with my opinions or even like them.  Do you post in political areas a lot?  People are going to have all kinds of opinions and you can take it all, leave it all, or even agree with some of what i say.  It makes no difference to me because i'm not winning anything really either way.  



Machiavellian on 18 July 2025
shavenferret said:
Machiavellian said:

Hmm, why do you believe they are liberals just because they questioned your statement.  Do you have to be liberal in questioning something that you feel is correct instead of actually being correct.  It is your opinion right, so why does it have anything to do with a political affinity or are you saying your opinion is the standard conservative or other political viewpoint thus if you do not agree with your opinion you must be liberal.  Just wondering why you are equating your opinion as if it leans a certain political way or maybe you are not being honest and you do have an ulterior motive.

It is quite interesting that someone calling themselves Machivellian is suspicious about an ulterior motive.  What kind of bad motive could I have?  Do you think i'm with the JDF or something like that?  Man, i'm just giving my 2 cents.  You don't have to agree with my opinions or even like them.  Do you post in political areas a lot?  People are going to have all kinds of opinions and you can take it all, leave it all, or even agree with some of what i say.  It makes no difference to me because i'm not winning anything really either way.  

What I find funny is that you are labeling everyone that disagree with you as liberal.  I am questioning why you feel that anyone who question your opinion has to be liberal and what makes your opinion based on any political party.  I do not care about what you believe I think, I am determining your motives in this thread.  I do not mine your opinion as I am always way more lenient when it comes to that.  What I do find suspect is when you label everyone who disagree with your opinion liberal this or that which then seems to me you have an agenda which we have seen on multiple occasions.

Now instead of deflecting, why don't you answer the question.



Around the Network
shavenferret on 18 July 2025
Machiavellian said:
shavenferret said:

It is quite interesting that someone calling themselves Machivellian is suspicious about an ulterior motive.  What kind of bad motive could I have?  Do you think i'm with the JDF or something like that?  Man, i'm just giving my 2 cents.  You don't have to agree with my opinions or even like them.  Do you post in political areas a lot?  People are going to have all kinds of opinions and you can take it all, leave it all, or even agree with some of what i say.  It makes no difference to me because i'm not winning anything really either way.  

What I find funny is that you are labeling everyone that disagree with you as liberal.  I am questioning why you feel that anyone who question your opinion has to be liberal and what makes your opinion based on any political party.  I do not care about what you believe I think, I am determining your motives in this thread.  I do not mine your opinion as I am always way more lenient when it comes to that.  What I do find suspect is when you label everyone who disagree with your opinion liberal this or that which then seems to me you have an agenda which we have seen on multiple occasions.

Now instead of deflecting, why don't you answer the question.

To answer your question, the original poster SvennoJ seems to have some liberal opinions.  Then i spoke with LurkerJ, who has a monica lewinsky avatar.  Monica was working for a Democrat administration if you recall so thinking that the poster behind the avatar would be a liberal would be plausible.  Then Mr pi guy spoke up.  He is known to have some liberal opinions, and perhaps i can look them up if you need me to substantiate anything.  Finally, yourself, Machivellian. I saw some posts that indicate you might indicate to a reasonable person (such as myself) that you might  be a liberal:

1.  Here you talk about repblicans being butt kissers, which was quite a funny comment

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9603397

2.  Here, you agree with another poster which has called the republican party a cult

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9596137

Now, I don't see why you are making such a big deal about what I think someone's politics is.  This wasn't even the main point in my discussions, it was all about the intelligence of Jews and why the evil adolf had a problem with them.  But I just showed you why I think that this is a liberal backlash against such comments that I made.  Do you have any other questions or will you leave me be?  As I said previously, you do not have to agree with me.  

Last edited by shavenferret - on 18 July 2025

Machiavellian on 18 July 2025
shavenferret said:
Machiavellian said:

What I find funny is that you are labeling everyone that disagree with you as liberal.  I am questioning why you feel that anyone who question your opinion has to be liberal and what makes your opinion based on any political party.  I do not care about what you believe I think, I am determining your motives in this thread.  I do not mine your opinion as I am always way more lenient when it comes to that.  What I do find suspect is when you label everyone who disagree with your opinion liberal this or that which then seems to me you have an agenda which we have seen on multiple occasions.

Now instead of deflecting, why don't you answer the question.

To answer your question, the original poster SvennoJ seems to have some liberal opinions.  Then i spoke with LurkerJ, who has a monica lewinsky avatar.  Monica was working for a Democrat administration if you recall so thinking that the poster behind the avatar would be a liberal would be plausible.  Then Mr pi guy spoke up.  He is known to have some liberal opinions, and perhaps i can look them up if you need me to substantiate anything.  Finally, yourself, Machivellian. I saw some posts that indicate you might indicate that you might  be a liberal:

1.  Here you talk about repblicans being butt kissers, which was quite a funny comment

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9603397

2.  Here, you agree with another poster which has called the republican party a cult

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9596137

Now, I don't see why you are making such a big deal about what I think someone's politics is.  This wasn't even the main point in my discussions, it was all about the intelligence of Jews and why the evil adolf had a problem with them.  But I just showed you why I think that this is a liberal backlash against such comments that I made.  Do you have any other questions or will you leave me be?  As I said previously, you do not have to agree with me.  

So why the victimhood in your reply I questioned.  Oh look a team of liberals are ganging up on me for my opinion, BooHo.  This is the type of stuff that I question in these threads.  The thing is, you equate your opinion as if its leans on some political point but to question your opinion means one must be liberal.  Just because you believe someone is liberal doesn't make it so and playing the victim seems like you have an agenda. 

Also, no, I do not believe an avatar means anything towards someone political party.  Why would I assume something like that when knowing absolutely nothing about that person.  Also, you seem to call an opinion liberal what exactly does that mean.  So, if you support Israel that would be a conservative opinion is that correct and why is it conservative.

You can look up all the post you want but you have absolutely no idea what my viewpoints are.  You can assume but then again like most assumptions you would be wrong.  I get this feeling you want to feel like some victim.  You make some claims than when people question your claims you want to appear like people are ganging up on you.  You made your claims in an open forum so feel free to support it or maybe stop making claims if you have a problem with people questioning your claims.  Your opinion isn't the definition of non-liberal, it's just your opinion.



SvennoJ on 18 July 2025
shavenferret said:
Machiavellian said:

What I find funny is that you are labeling everyone that disagree with you as liberal.  I am questioning why you feel that anyone who question your opinion has to be liberal and what makes your opinion based on any political party.  I do not care about what you believe I think, I am determining your motives in this thread.  I do not mine your opinion as I am always way more lenient when it comes to that.  What I do find suspect is when you label everyone who disagree with your opinion liberal this or that which then seems to me you have an agenda which we have seen on multiple occasions.

Now instead of deflecting, why don't you answer the question.

To answer your question, the original poster SvennoJ seems to have some liberal opinions.  Then i spoke with LurkerJ, who has a monica lewinsky avatar.  Monica was working for a Democrat administration if you recall so thinking that the poster behind the avatar would be a liberal would be plausible.  Then Mr pi guy spoke up.  He is known to have some liberal opinions, and perhaps i can look them up if you need me to substantiate anything.  Finally, yourself, Machivellian. I saw some posts that indicate you might indicate to a reasonable person (such as myself) that you might  be a liberal:

1.  Here you talk about repblicans being butt kissers, which was quite a funny comment

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9603397

2.  Here, you agree with another poster which has called the republican party a cult

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9596137

Now, I don't see why you are making such a big deal about what I think someone's politics is.  This wasn't even the main point in my discussions, it was all about the intelligence of Jews and why the evil adolf had a problem with them.  But I just showed you why I think that this is a liberal backlash against such comments that I made.  Do you have any other questions or will you leave me be?  As I said previously, you do not have to agree with me.  

Why do you consider my opinions 'Liberal'. Btw it's not where I score on any political test and I only voted Liberal this year as there was no other choice due to the first past the post system. 

And as for your hidden agenda, you started your reply to me with:

"Any nazis reading this will be pissed. Anyway, have a good day Svenno!"

I get what you mean now since you mistakenly believe Nazis went after the Jews for their intelligence.

But your "liberal backlash" seems just to be a defense mechanism to dismiss anything people reply to you that doesn't fit your world view. You haven't replied to me with any facts or any counter to all the reasoned and backed with facts replies I have given you. Instead you only deflect, move the topic and then say let's drop it.

Since you accuse me of liberal backlash, I'll accuse you of behaving like Trump.

The main point was about Columbia University adopting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/16/columbia-antisemitism-trump-administration-funding

You made it about the intelligence of Jews and Hitler having a problem with that. 



The_Yoda on 18 July 2025
xboxgreen said:
sundin13 said:

The rich have enough money that additional taxes will not affect their "life style". 

Besides, we always hear this stuff about taxes and then a tax cut comes around and the only thing that changes is that the rich have more money and the poor have less. We keep cutting taxes and cutting taxes and the rich keep getting richer and the poor don't seem to really be thriving. Suddenly you say that if we raise taxes back up, an economic apocalypse will strike this country... Its all just greed, man. At some point, this country needs to grow some balls and stop catering to billionaires and suits and start fighting for the people who are actually generating the wealth. Cutting taxes won't save us from this wealth inequality nightmare. How about we try literally fucking anything else, eh?

Depends on what you define as rich and what life style they choose to live. Someone who has 3 million dollars in net worth is consider rich to me. If they want to travel a lot and see the world they can. However, they will have to be careful not to overspend or else they will lose all of of their money. A rich billionaire life style might be an entrepreneur who wants to use their money to create new products, services and innovation. That requires a lot of money sometimes.

If you start taxing rich people a lot more they will find ways to recoup their loses. Usually at the cost of the middle class. People end up poor a lot because of their own doing majority of the time. They don't invest and pay off their debt. Then when something comes up like a layoff, they don't have any money and blame everyone else. Even though if they invest their money they would've been fine.

Teachers are a good example on how to become rich. Teachers may not get paid the most but are one of the demographics that become millionaires more frequent than any other profession. Because it is all about time and budgeting.

Not to mention if you tax too much you end up losing more tax revenue. For example, if you tax rich people a much higher rate then the billionaires will leave and stop investing in the United Staes. If you tax middle/poor class too much they will stop working because there will be no point in working.





I have never heard that about teachers and i am skeptical.  Do you have any sources for that?  Growing up in the USA i have always felt teachers were underpaid.  I always loop back to pro-athlete vs teachers wages and feel like we have things horribly bass-akwards when we pay entertainers so much better than those teachers helping shape our countries future.



The_Yoda on 18 July 2025
SvennoJ said:
The_Yoda said:

Kind of like the weakening of the term Genocide?

That still has the same definition since 1951:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in
time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.

And continued in the link

If anything Israel/Aipac try to change the definition of genocide to only be relevant after total extermination. 

It is the "in part" part of that definition that I take issue with.  It opens the term up to be applied to nearly any conflict.  You killed say 5% of a group and left the other part alone that is still "in part" and falls under the LEGAL definition of Genocide that the UN adopted.  It washes the word out and muddies it's meaning.

Encyclopedia Britannica

genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. The term, derived from the Greek genos (“race,” “tribe,” or “nation”) and the Latin cide (“killing”), was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II.

Miriam-Webster

genocide

noun

geno·​cide ˈje-nə-ˌsīd 
Synonyms of genocide
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Lemkin defined “genocide” as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

Notice those do not say "in part" they refer to the targeting of the whole group for elimination. 

What is the difference between war and genocide?
Genocide is the deliberate and often systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious, or racial group. As in warfare, one side often dehumanizes the other side, but unlike warfare, genocide is often waged by one group against another and not the other way around.
It comes down to what you think is correct.  I understand that you use the UN Legal definition because it fits your narrative.  I disagree with the "in part" section of the  legal definition and adhere to the creator of the word's definition.  If I think something is Genocide then it fits both Lemkin's (and most dictionaries) definition and the UN / US Legal definition.  You seem to only support the Legal definition that does not always fit the dictionary definition.
As an aside I did see one dictionary definition that was an almost verbatim take from the UN legal one it included ("in part").  Also the fact that the English-Oxford dictionary is behind a paywall kind of sucks.
End of the day we will still be in disagreement over Genocide fitting the original point of definitions being weakened.  
Genocide is the deliberate and often systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious, or racial group. As in warfare, one side often dehumanizes the other side, but unlike warfare, genocide is often waged by one group against another and not the other way around.