Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YYW. ama

ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 6:49:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you a hockey fan yet?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:03:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:49:29 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Are you a hockey fan yet?

I sort of vicariously enjoy it through you telling me about it lol
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:05:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:03:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:49:29 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Are you a hockey fan yet?

I sort of vicariously enjoy it through you telling me about it lol

Lol.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

Wrong.
It starts with a capital letter.
Shameful YYW. I thought you'd get that right. :P
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:10:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

Wrong.
It starts with a capital letter.
Shameful YYW. I thought you'd get that right. :P

I require fried plantains, vanilla ice cream and coconut milk. You should make that happen.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:18:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
If Hillary Clinton does not run for President, who would you prefer to see run?

In answering this question, it's important that you understand why I'm answering it in this way:

I don't care who runs, as long as they are (1) likable, and (2) support universal health care.

Hillary Clinton is the only politician in the DNC who has a chance of winning the general election. If she did not run, then the Republicans would almost surely win. The GOP already has a considerable amount of popular support, but I think that (as is always the case when Republicans experience sweeping victories), they derive a meaning from the election that is far greater than what the American people actually handed them.

In the case with the midterms, what "actually" happened was that a bunch of disenfranchised people got out to the polls and voted against two more years of the status quo under Obama. That is quite a bit different than "actual support" for the Republican party. However, if Hillary doesn't sufficiently distinguish herself from Obama, it won't matter because she will be seen by the electorate as at least four more years of the status quo under Obama.

The problem with Obama is that he is not a "feel good" president. Reagan was a "feel good" president, as was Bill Clinton and to a lesser degree George Bush before he invaded Iraq. People felt happy inside when Reagan, who was more or less America's grandfather, held America's hand while his administration eviscerated LBJ's social safety net and broke the bank on defense spending (not that I disagree with that -but I want both guns and butter).

So, to be clear, there are a whole bunch of factors that fit into three of four more or less overlapping goals that come into play if Hillary Clinton is off the table.

The Factors:

I want a candidate who is (1) for universal health care (which would go further than Obamacare, in that it would actually 'provide' health care rather than merely 'penalize' people who fail to buy health insurance), (2) supports gay marriage, gay rights and gender equality absolutely (so, no politician who straddles the line on any of those issues), (3) who is for a strong but sensible defense policy (that will wrap up Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the like as well as quell Russia while reassuring China that we're at least "buddies"), (4) that will be able to manage and sustain the Democratic Party's image throughout the duration of his or her presidency.

That candidate is not Elizabeth Warren, who is more or less the female equivalent of Joe Biden, but who happens to lean slightly further to the left than him.

More or less what I want is a politician that can "sell" Democratic ideals and values to the American people, and can get elected two terms. I want a Jed Bartlett, who is further to the left and just as charismatic. No such candidate exists.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

I believe the correct answer is "a letter".

Why do you you have so many AMAs?
Is this a cry for attention?
Is life so empty without me?
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:03:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:18:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
If Hillary Clinton does not run for President, who would you prefer to see run?

In answering this question, it's important that you understand why I'm answering it in this way:

I don't care who runs, as long as they are (1) likable, and (2) support universal health care.

Interesting.

Hillary Clinton is the only politician in the DNC who has a chance of winning the general election. If she did not run, then the Republicans would almost surely win. The GOP already has a considerable amount of popular support, but I think that (as is always the case when Republicans experience sweeping victories), they derive a meaning from the election that is far greater than what the American people actually handed them.

In the case with the midterms, what "actually" happened was that a bunch of disenfranchised people got out to the polls and voted against two more years of the status quo under Obama. That is quite a bit different than "actual support" for the Republican party. However, if Hillary doesn't sufficiently distinguish herself from Obama, it won't matter because she will be seen by the electorate as at least four more years of the status quo under Obama.

I'd generally agree here. I think your party is in very serious trouble if you don't start finding people off your bench that can run for President - us Republicans might not have a killer candidate, but I think we at least have enough viable ones to remain competitive even in bad years. It's very hard to picture an Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, or Joe Biden doing well - about the only benefit I can see is that maybe Bernie Sanders won't run and take away 2-5% of the vote.

The problem with Obama is that he is not a "feel good" president. Reagan was a "feel good" president, as was Bill Clinton and to a lesser degree George Bush before he invaded Iraq. People felt happy inside when Reagan, who was more or less America's grandfather, held America's hand while his administration eviscerated LBJ's social safety net and broke the bank on defense spending (not that I disagree with that -but I want both guns and butter).

This is a good point. If President Obama was anything like candidate Obama, I think you'd be in much better shape.

So, to be clear, there are a whole bunch of factors that fit into three of four more or less overlapping goals that come into play if Hillary Clinton is off the table.

The Factors:

I want a candidate who is (1) for universal health care (which would go further than Obamacare, in that it would actually 'provide' health care rather than merely 'penalize' people who fail to buy health insurance), (2) supports gay marriage, gay rights and gender equality absolutely (so, no politician who straddles the line on any of those issues), (3) who is for a strong but sensible defense policy (that will wrap up Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the like as well as quell Russia while reassuring China that we're at least "buddies"), (4) that will be able to manage and sustain the Democratic Party's image throughout the duration of his or her presidency.

That candidate is not Elizabeth Warren, who is more or less the female equivalent of Joe Biden, but who happens to lean slightly further to the left than him.

More or less what I want is a politician that can "sell" Democratic ideals and values to the American people, and can get elected two terms. I want a Jed Bartlett, who is further to the left and just as charismatic. No such candidate exists.

So essentially, a New Deal Democrat along the lines of a modern LBJ - someone who supports expanded welfare and is on the right side of social issues, but also favors a strong military?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

I believe the correct answer is "a letter".

That would be "one" correct answer. The other correct answer would be the letter that my first name actually started with. To say "a letter" is to be "a wiseass," which -while ordinarily I'm certainly happy to be- is a habit I'm trying to break.

Why do you you have so many AMAs?

I'm a narcissistic attention whore, obviously.

Is this a cry for attention?

Have I mentioned that I'm a narcissistic attention whore?

Is life so empty without me?

*dies a little inside*
Tsar of DDO
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:22:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

On a scale of 1-10, what is your new number of how annoying I am?

Why is this in the Personal section and not the Debate.org section?
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

Trained in any of the Martial Arts?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:40:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:19:08 PM, TN05 wrote:
I'd generally agree here. I think your party is in very serious trouble if you don't start finding people off your bench that can run for President - us Republicans might not have a killer candidate, but I think we at least have enough viable ones to remain competitive even in bad years. It's very hard to picture an Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, or Joe Biden doing well - about the only benefit I can see is that maybe Bernie Sanders won't run and take away 2-5% of the vote.

The problem is that none of them are electable. They are not good, or even acceptable options.

The problem with Obama is that he is not a "feel good" president. Reagan was a "feel good" president, as was Bill Clinton and to a lesser degree George Bush before he invaded Iraq. People felt happy inside when Reagan, who was more or less America's grandfather, held America's hand while his administration eviscerated LBJ's social safety net and broke the bank on defense spending (not that I disagree with that -but I want both guns and butter).

This is a good point. If President Obama was anything like candidate Obama, I think you'd be in much better shape.

I don't think there's much doubt that Obama's failure to communicate, or, rather, sell his legislative agenda (irony, since he was lauded as "the great communicator") to the American people has poisoned them against it. When you have a party that blames everything on the guy at the top, and the guy on top doesn't respond, you see some pretty low poll numbers.

The other irony is that, on balance, the economy is doing pretty well. Jobs are coming back. They're not "good" jobs, but they're better than nothing. Unemployment is down. Stocks are soaring. etc. The issue that remains is the general sense of malaise that the American people have with "where they perceive themselves to be." As a country, we are not at that place where most people thought we would be six years after they voted for Obama. That is not the president's fault, per se, so much as it is the fault of any voter who voted for Obama for president and then voted for a Republican for congress. In politics, you play the hand you've got... and Obama's holding a pair of threes whereas the Republicans have a pair of sixes. Both pretty shitty hands, but one is comparably better than the other.

So essentially, a New Deal Democrat along the lines of a modern LBJ - someone who supports expanded welfare and is on the right side of social issues, but also favors a strong military?

Not really. The New Deal didn't really do the things that I want, although there's some moral overlap there. When you say "expanded" that word bothers me because it's only half the story. What I want is for people to be able to get the skills and resources they need to do better for themselves and their families. My focus is on people, and especially people who make less than $250,000.00 per year.

What I want is for a poor kid in West Virginia to be able to have a chance to go to college and be able to afford to eat while doing it, without having to join the military. I want a single mom who is working three part time jobs and puts in 80 hour weeks but can not afford to get a necessary dental procedure to be able to have the same quality of health care that I can get, and I want her kids to have their health care paid for completely by tax payers.

I want the lower and middle classes (again, people earn less than $250,000.00 per year) to pay fewer taxes and I want the wealthy to pay more. I want people to not be able to write off the interest they pay on vacation homes as a tax deduction, and I want section 8 housing to be habitable. I want people to have money to buy food, and I want American farmers to grow it. I also want the United States to be completely energy independent. I want no one in the United States to go to bed hungry at night, and no one to die of a heart attack because they couldn't afford heart medication.

I want all of these things because I value people more than free markets, though I understand that markets have to be free enough for the marketplace to generate the wealth to make the world that I want possible. That is why I am a liberal and not a socialist. And more importantly, I want a president who wants all of those things and can sell the message to the American people as good or better than I can.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:29:51 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

Trained in any of the Martial Arts?

Boxing
Tae Kwon Do as a kid
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:22:18 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

On a scale of 1-10, what is your new number of how annoying I am?

I don't have an opinion...

Why is this in the Personal section and not the Debate.org section?

Because I am a trend setter.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:40:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:19:08 PM, TN05 wrote:
I'd generally agree here. I think your party is in very serious trouble if you don't start finding people off your bench that can run for President - us Republicans might not have a killer candidate, but I think we at least have enough viable ones to remain competitive even in bad years. It's very hard to picture an Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, or Joe Biden doing well - about the only benefit I can see is that maybe Bernie Sanders won't run and take away 2-5% of the vote.

The problem is that none of them are electable. They are not good, or even acceptable options.

The Republicans? I disagree. There are many viable options - Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Rob Portman.

The problem with Obama is that he is not a "feel good" president. Reagan was a "feel good" president, as was Bill Clinton and to a lesser degree George Bush before he invaded Iraq. People felt happy inside when Reagan, who was more or less America's grandfather, held America's hand while his administration eviscerated LBJ's social safety net and broke the bank on defense spending (not that I disagree with that -but I want both guns and butter).

This is a good point. If President Obama was anything like candidate Obama, I think you'd be in much better shape.

I don't think there's much doubt that Obama's failure to communicate, or, rather, sell his legislative agenda (irony, since he was lauded as "the great communicator") to the American people has poisoned them against it. When you have a party that blames everything on the guy at the top, and the guy on top doesn't respond, you see some pretty low poll numbers.

The other irony is that, on balance, the economy is doing pretty well. Jobs are coming back. They're not "good" jobs, but they're better than nothing. Unemployment is down. Stocks are soaring. etc. The issue that remains is the general sense of malaise that the American people have with "where they perceive themselves to be." As a country, we are not at that place where most people thought we would be six years after they voted for Obama. That is not the president's fault, per se, so much as it is the fault of any voter who voted for Obama for president and then voted for a Republican for congress. In politics, you play the hand you've got... and Obama's holding a pair of threes whereas the Republicans have a pair of sixes. Both pretty shitty hands, but one is comparably better than the other.

So essentially, a New Deal Democrat along the lines of a modern LBJ - someone who supports expanded welfare and is on the right side of social issues, but also favors a strong military?

Not really. The New Deal didn't really do the things that I want, although there's some moral overlap there. When you say "expanded" that word bothers me because it's only half the story. What I want is for people to be able to get the skills and resources they need to do better for themselves and their families. My focus is on people, and especially people who make less than $250,000.00 per year.

So the New Deal, the basis of modern liberalism, wasn't expansive enough?

What I want is for a poor kid in West Virginia to be able to have a chance to go to college and be able to afford to eat while doing it, without having to join the military. I want a single mom who is working three part time jobs and puts in 80 hour weeks but can not afford to get a necessary dental procedure to be able to have the same quality of health care that I can get, and I want her kids to have their health care paid for completely by tax payers.

I want the lower and middle classes (again, people earn less than $250,000.00 per year) to pay fewer taxes and I want the wealthy to pay more. I want people to not be able to write off the interest they pay on vacation homes as a tax deduction, and I want section 8 housing to be habitable. I want people to have money to buy food, and I want American farmers to grow it. I also want the United States to be completely energy independent. I want no one in the United States to go to bed hungry at night, and no one to die of a heart attack because they couldn't afford heart medication.

I want all of these things because I value people more than free markets, though I understand that markets have to be free enough for the marketplace to generate the wealth to make the world that I want possible. That is why I am a liberal and not a socialist. And more importantly, I want a president who wants all of those things and can sell the message to the American people as good or better than I can.

What country would you say lies closest to those ideals, in your opinion?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:08:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@TN05

What I want is an opportunity society where the people have the opportunity to actually make something of themselves. When Republicans talk about wanting free markets, their "ideal" or "theory" is more or less good. Like me, they want the same things: for people to work hard and to be able to benefit from the fruits of their labor. On that, we completely agree.

The difference is how conscientious we are of the reality of translating that vision into policy and practice. Republicans believe that people who are on welfare "get comfortable" and do not try harder because they are content being lazy and dependent. There are some people who are like that, but they are the "extreme" minority. It's really interesting how that particular myth of welfare came to fruition (mainly Reagan, in the 1980s), but that's the kind of thing that would require an intellectual history of the Republican party.

What Republicans do is they take that "model" of someone who receives welfare, and they assume that the model they're familiar with is "the" model which is representative of all -or at least a majority of- welfare cases. This is really problematic for a number of reasons: (1) it's not true, (2) it creates a moral stigma attached to poverty, (3) it totally confuses the causes and effects of poverty and hardship.

There are so many things that happen now that keep poor people not only poor, but ensures that they're going to get poorer as time goes on and it's horrible. You might read a book called "The Working Poor" if this is something you doubt me on. The thing is, though, that Republicans "blame" them for their situation, when the reality is that no one does it alone. No one's individual choices alone put them where they are. We are all the sum of our environment AND the choices that we make from within our environment's constraints. It's not ONLY choices, but it would have to ONLY be choices for the GOP's moral condemnation (read: the 47%) to have any basis in reality.

But, that's the elephant in the room (well, the other one... social security is the first) that no one wants to talk about -or at least wanted to talk about. Reagan made it "political suicide" for Republicans to be compassionate because he changed the cultural perception of what it meant to be poor. Bush was better than Reagan (and in fact, both 41 and 43 were -in terms of what they did for the American people), but Reagan is the one that Republicans want to make their patron saint and it's as sad as it is emblematic of what's fundamentally wrong with the GOP and the United States now.

The social issues are big, but what's damning is how they fail, so richly, to "actually" give a sh!t about normal people while simultaneously duping the poor and uneducated into thinking that the GOP is on their side. So, the poor, mostly uneducated, white people -but mostly men- (many of them in the South) who vote for Republicans year after year are little more than "useful idiots" who support the policy interests of the landed elite in this country but who believe that they are somehow "helping themselves" by voting for them.

That's why I shake my head whenever I hear of a person who makes less than $250,000.00 per year, who voted for a republican and said that they did it because voting for the GOP was in their economic interest. On the issue of taxes, Democrats do not want the middle class to pay more. Republican policy makers want the wealthy to pay a lower rate than even the middle class -and many do. But, the kids of those poor Republicans will often go without adequate access to health care, receive horribly inferior education, will most likely not go to college, and will be working service industry jobs because the manufacturing base will *never* come back. To put this as clearly as I can: the polices that Republican voters now are implementing, or would implement, will condemn the overwhelming majority of their kids to poverty if they were realized and not changed over time.

That, more or less, is how I think as a Liberal. I don't care about Libertarian fictions like Ayn Rand, and I don't care about the Dagney Taggert's of this world. I care about how well off the lowest and middle classes of America are doing, and I am more than willing to sacrifice one exceptional case for the benefit of the rest of a people. It's "e pluribus unum" not "unum pro multis." (From many, one; not for one, many).
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:57:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
"why?"

Just "why?"

http://www.debate.org...

I guess you missed the part about my being an narcissistic attention whore....
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:16:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:46:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
The Republicans? I disagree. There are many viable options - Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Rob Portman.

There are some electable Republicans, when the option is between them and someone who is not Hillary Clinton. And there are some Republicans who would be very competitive with Hillary. Chris Christie/Jeb Bush ticket would be interesting.

So the New Deal, the basis of modern liberalism, wasn't expansive enough?

The New Deal was more expansive on some things than it should have been, and not expansive enough on others. But, I do think that what I'm proposing could be called a "New" New Deal. Let's not get caught up on the terminology, though. Policy is what's important.

What country would you say lies closest to those ideals, in your opinion?

I think Norway and Denmark do a good job. I'd like to see US Oil companies nationalized and for all of the profits to be sued to benefit the welfare of every US citizen.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:10:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:57:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
"why?"

Just "why?"

http://www.debate.org...

I guess you missed the part about my being an narcissistic attention whore....

darn, I was hoping you'd go uber philosophyical about the purpose of existence as the ultimate "why"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:27:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:10:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:57:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
"why?"

Just "why?"

http://www.debate.org...

I guess you missed the part about my being an narcissistic attention whore....

darn, I was hoping you'd go uber philosophyical about the purpose of existence as the ultimate "why"

lol

No...

The answer is simple.

It's because I'm a narcissistic attention whore.
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 5:29:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 7:11:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:10:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

Wrong.
It starts with a capital letter.
Shameful YYW. I thought you'd get that right. :P

I require fried plantains, vanilla ice cream and coconut milk. You should make that happen.

Ew you like fried plantains?! Bleh.
Chocolate/Cookie dough > vanilla
Coconut milk.. is coconut milk. :-D

Why?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 5:29:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

I believe the correct answer is "a letter".

I love you.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:48:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:19:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I'm a narcissistic attention whore, obviously.
My turn to be one.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how justified is the disrespect geared towards me?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how justified is the respect geared towards me?

Did you start college early?
How have you taught a class?
Why is college so important to you, in a generic sense? Do you believe all people should go to college?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:48:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 5:29:13 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 7:02:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:47:21 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 11/15/2014 6:36:26 PM, YYW wrote:
I feel like it's time to get this started again.

what does your real name start with?

Nope.

I believe the correct answer is "a letter".

I love you.

I think you have me confused with someone else.
Don't worry, it happens all the time.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:57:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 9:48:18 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:19:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:11:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I'm a narcissistic attention whore, obviously.
My turn to be one.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how justified is the disrespect geared towards me?

I think that you and nympho both give and take, and I think that it should stop. You're both good players, and though you play differently, you need to learn to co-exist.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how justified is the respect geared towards me?

I think you're a good mafia player. Is that what you're really asking about?

Did you start college early?

Yes.

How have you taught a class?

Really, by luck. I was in the right place at the right time.

Why is college so important to you, in a generic sense? Do you believe all people should go to college?

I do not believe that all people should go to college. I think that most people who go to college for business, or psychology, and any number of other career areas should have gone to trade school.

The reason that college is so important to me is because without a degree, finding a good and stable job is almost an impossibility -especially for people my age.
Tsar of DDO