Economics

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Seriously? The language in the Catechism denouncing adultery is at least as strong as the language regarding fair economic behaviors. Would you actually endorse federal legislation that made pre-marital relations punishable by imprisonment? Really?

Also, from the Catechism: "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."

That's fine. Then what are YOU doing to help steer people away from these awful loan sharks? Obviously, the people seeking assistance in this form are the most economically vulnerable. But the fact is, groups like The Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Austin are exceedingly rare and the alternative for the economically meek is non existent. So it is either best to take up the effort and pave the way for all, or let the state handle it.

I'll wait with bated breath for the grand opening of Wiz Credit Union in Bristol.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
That's fine. Then what are YOU doing to help steer people away from these awful loan sharks? Obviously, the people seeking assistance in this form are the most economically vulnerable. But the fact is, groups like The Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Austin are exceedingly rare and the alternative for the economically meek is non existent. So it is either best to take up the effort and pave the way for all, or let the state handle it.

I'll wait with bated breath for the grand opening of Wiz Credit Union in Bristol.
Give me a break, that's such a ridiculous argument. It's like saying anyone who believes in national defense needs to be an active member of the military or that someone who believes in the value of family has to be married with many children.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Seriously? The language in the Catechism denouncing adultery is at least as strong as the language regarding fair economic behaviors. Would you actually endorse federal legislation that made pre-marital relations punishable by imprisonment? Really?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"</p>— wint (@dril) <a href="https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Libertarians view legislation as an exercise in maximizing utility. That outlook causes lots of problems because: (1) the Common Good can't be approximated that way; and (2) law is instructive, so which activities are prohibited/ allowed sends strong messages that impact the moral formation of the citizenry. Porn should be illegal. Using it shouldn't subject one to jail time, but making it and distributing it certainly should. So should usury and whole host of other exploitative socially-destructive activities.

Similar situation with adultery. Jail time for individual adulterers probably isn't an appropriate remedy (though I'd strongly endorse public flogging for, say, a married man with young children who cheats on his wife), but for pimping or running a site like Ashley Madison? Absolutely.

Also, from the Catechism: "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."

Any Catholic whose knowledge of the Church's social teaching goes beyond a few cherry-picked lines from Rerum Novarum can tell you that all economic activity must be subordinated to the Common Good. Capitalism rejects that idea completely. So bang on about the virtues of free enterprise all your want, but you won't find any support from the Church for tolerating usury and predatory lending.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Libertarians view legislation as an exercise in maximizing utility. That outlook causes lots of problems because: (1) the Common Good can't be approximated that way; and (2) law is instructive, so which activities are prohibited/ allowed sends strong messages that impact the moral formation of the citizenry. Porn should be illegal. Using it shouldn't subject one to jail time, but making it and distributing it certainly should. So should usury and whole host of other exploitative socially-destructive activities.

Similar situation with adultery. Jail time for individual adulterers probably isn't an appropriate remedy (though I'd strongly endorse public flogging for, say, a married man with young children who cheats on his wife), but for pimping or running a site like Ashley Madison? Absolutely.

Any Catholic whose knowledge of the Church's social teaching goes beyond a few cherry-picked lines from Rerum Novarum can tell you that all economic activity must be subordinated to the Common Good. Capitalism rejects that idea completely. So bang on about the virtues of free enterprise all your want, but you won't find any support from the Church for tolerating usury and predatory lending.
Almost none of what you just said is an accurate description of my position. I don't tolerate the pornographer because pornography ought to be tolerated, I tolerate the pornographer because the State agency that would be tasked with regulating the pornographer would also necessarily have the power to regulate religious speech it doesn't like. My position is not one of tolerance for evil, but fear of the potentially greater evil that would be required to combat it.

What in our current political climate (or any political climate in human history) gives you any confidence whatsoever that such a regulatory agency would be faithful in its mission toward promoting the Common Good?
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Almost none of what you just said is an accurate description of my position. I don't tolerate the pornographer because pornography ought to be tolerated, I tolerate the pornographer because the State agency that would be tasked with regulating the pornographer would also necessarily have the power to regulate religious speech it doesn't like. My position is not one of tolerance for evil, but fear of the potentially greater evil that would be required to combat it.

Our government already suppresses "religious" activity it doesn't like; surely you haven't missed all the recent lawsuits against Catholic institutions? Secular liberalism is a religion. It's just a really shitty one. We could do a lot better by, for instance, appealing to Natural Law as a common ground accessible to Catholics, Jews, most Protestants, and anyone who recognizes that the promotion of virtue and self-restraint are necessary to prevent our society from being torn apart via atomization.

What in our current political climate (or any political climate in human history) gives you any confidence whatsoever that such a regulatory agency would be faithful in its mission toward promoting the Common Good?

It can't, as long as liberalism remains ascendant. But our founding principles also include a lot of Natural Law. The American political project contains the resources to renew itself, but we're going to have to come to some hard realizations about liberalism (both economic and cultural) and the dangers of naked self-interest before that becomes possible.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Our government already suppresses "religious" activity it doesn't like; surely you haven't missed all the recent lawsuits against Catholic institutions? Secular liberalism is a religion. It's just a really shitty one. We could do a lot better by, for instance, appealing to Natural Law as a common ground accessible to Catholics, Jews, most Protestants, and anyone who recognizes that the promotion of virtue and self-restraint are necessary to prevent our society from being torn apart via atomization.

It can't, as long as liberalism remains ascendant. But our founding principles also include a lot of Natural Law. The American political project contains the resources to renew itself, but we're going to have to come to some hard realizations about liberalism (both economic and cultural) and the dangers of naked self-interest before that becomes possible.
Oh, is that all? That's like saying we could really cut down on the murder rate if we could just convince people that murder is bad, y'all. It's as Utopian as any economic model held up by the Marxist left. Men are fallen creatures and any social / political system that denies that is doomed before it gets off the ground. Economic liberalism isn't the best system in a world of perfect angels, but it's by far the best system that accommodates for human beings as they naturally are. No, greed is not good. But greed is real. We might as well channel it to (generally) productive ends that promote ordinary human flourishing rather than deny its existence until it evolves into a wolf that gobbles up the lambs among us. The only way a benevolent authoritarian state can possibly develop is into a tyrannical oligarchy.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Oh, is that all? That's like saying we could really cut down on the murder rate if we could just convince people that murder is bad, y'all. It's as Utopian as any economic model held up by the Marxist left.

It's really not. Humanity got along just fine for thousands of years without economic liberalism.

Men are fallen creatures and any social / political system that denies that is doomed before it gets off the ground.

Is that how you parent? "Grace isn't an angel, so it would be foolish to encourage virtue and discourage vice. Instead, I'll devise an elaborate system to generates some questionable benefits from her vices, and tell myself this is the best a father can do in a fallen world."

Economic liberalism isn't the best system in a world of perfect angels, but it's by far the best system that accommodates for human beings as they naturally are.

Simply stating it doesn't make it true.

No, greed is not good. But greed is real. We might as well channel it to (generally) productive ends that promote ordinary human flourishing rather than deny its existence until it evolves into a wolf that gobbles up the lambs among us.

This mindset is why atomization in virtually all spheres of American life appears irreversible. Liberalism assumes that the "state of nature" is total war, that peace is a human artifice, and the only way to maintain civilization is to endorse moral relativism, give the state a monopoly on violence, and crush those who fall out of line with overwhelming force. Christendom took the opposite view-- peace is the natural state of man, with conflict as the exception; so it endorsed a coherent moral view of the Common Good, with the authorized use of force dispersed widely throughout the polity as long as it was employed in support of the peace.

In short, you get what you aim for. Liberals believe that man is essentially selfish and violent, and only restrained from breaking legs and picking pockets by the threat of force from the State. And thus liberal subjects come more and more to resemble that assumption. If we want to start producing a better caliber of citizen, we have to replace liberalism with a philosophy that posits a better (and more realistic) vision of man and what human flourishing actually entails.

The only way a benevolent authoritarian state can possibly develop is into a tyrannical oligarchy.

Citation lacking.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
It's really not. Humanity got along just fine for thousands of years without economic liberalism.
Totally. We were shitting in buckets and dying at age 35, but who's counting?

Is that how you parent? "Grace isn't an angel, so it would be foolish to encourage virtue and discourage vice. Instead, I'll devise an elaborate system to generates some questionable benefits from her vices, and tell myself this is the best a father can do in a fallen world."
"The fourth commandment opens the second table of the Decalogue. It shows us the order of charity. God has willed that, after him, we should honor our parents to whom we owe life and who have handed on to us the knowledge of God. We are obliged to honor and respect all those whom God, for our good, has vested with His authority."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Totally. We were shitting in buckets and dying at age 35, but who's counting?

If you've accepted every anti-Catholic caricature of the Middle Ages you've ever seen at face value (to say nothing of Ancient Rome or Greece), then yes, you're absolutely right. The way we live today under secular liberalism is superior in every way to every human society that has ever come before.

"Nothing Better Was Possible" will be inscribed over the gate to whatever circle of Hell liberals get consigned to.

"The fourth commandment opens the second table of the Decalogue. It shows us the order of charity. God has willed that, after him, we should honor our parents to whom we owe life and who have handed on to us the knowledge of God. We are obliged to honor and respect all those whom God, for our good, has vested with His authority."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4

Yes, and in Christendom, there was a clear continuum between God as the father of all, the king as father of the nation, and man as father of his household. My parenting analogies apparently don't resonate with you because you've accepted uncritically a radical break between the nuclear family and everything beyond it, which is absolutely not Catholic.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Yes, and in Christendom, there was a clear continuum between God as the father of all, the king as father of the nation, and man as father of his household.
Yeah but not in that order! You've talked about subsidiarity a number of times and it's a bottom-up hierarchy, not top-down.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Almost none of what you just said is an accurate description of my position. I don't tolerate the pornographer because pornography ought to be tolerated, I tolerate the pornographer because the State agency that would be tasked with regulating the pornographer would also necessarily have the power to regulate religious speech it doesn't like. My position is not one of tolerance for evil, but fear of the potentially greater evil that would be required to combat it.

What in our current political climate (or any political climate in human history) gives you any confidence whatsoever that such a regulatory agency would be faithful in its mission toward promoting the Common Good?

cmon man.

We are talking about loan sharks. Interest rates and business practices that are predatory. This isn't some over regulation of interest rates that are marginally higher than market rate. What we are talking about is deliberate and debilitating practices that are clear outliers. In your example of porn, its the difference between topless videos and kiddy. One is clearly more wrong than the other and needs to be resolved.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Yeah but not in that order! You've talked about subsidiarity a number of times and it's a bottom-up hierarchy, not top-down.

So the sovereign, as the father of the nation, is not allowed to defend the peace by outlawing predatory lending practices because, uhh *looks at notecards*.... subsidiarity?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
So the sovereign, as the father of the nation, is not allowed to defend the peace by outlawing predatory lending practices because, uhh *looks at notecards*.... subsidiarity?
The burden of proof is on the party who wants to take affirmative action, i.e. not me

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The burden of proof is on the party who wants to take affirmative action, i.e. not me

You're obviously wrong under CST. Usury is condemned in Scripture, it was illegal under Christendom, Aquinas and multiple Popes have written against it extensively, etc.

So I assume you're asking me to defend a ban under liberal principles? Fine. Ban it for the same reason Schedule I drugs are heavily regulated-- it has a "high potential for abuse". Or more accurately, the user runs a high risk of being enslaved by the practice. Liberals like personal autonomy, right? So let's legislate against those products and practices that carry a high risk of compromising one's autonomy.

Libertarians would probably object, but I don't really care what the "But what if the child consents..." crowd thinks:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WgGd7Ns7wnE" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
cc: Buster & wizards

cc: Buster & wizards

The Week's Matthew Walther just published an article titled "America's junk epidemic":

No matter what President Trump says, the decline of American manufacturing won't be reversed by modest tariffs on aluminum and steel. There is more to this issue than industrial metals. Perhaps the largest structural economic crisis this country faces — one that encompasses everything else from outsourcing to stagnant wages to the environment — is the decades-long epidemic of cheap crap.

"This is why we can't have nice things" is a cliché that has lost its meaning. The reason we can't have nice things in America in 2018 is that we don't want them.

Think about the last pair of socks you purchased. Unless you spent upwards of $25 on them, they were probably made of Chinese acrylic. Getting them on your toes resembled an attempt to strangle a zebra with a sandwich bag. And afterward you couldn't shake the feeling that your feet were encased in a substance not unlike paint. They probably had a hole in them after a single wear. But, hey, who could pass up 12 pairs for $12 with Prime shipping?

It is almost impossible to buy a pair of jeans made in this country, and the ones that are made in the United States from American-milled denim cost $400 and look like they belong on androgynous French supermodels. Most $30 pairs will last six months — less if they are worn a few times a week, the way jeans should be. It is insane that we have let this happen in the Land of the Free. An America that doesn't make jeans is like an America where the bald eagle is extinct and Tom Selleck's mustache has been Photoshopped out of every extant picture.

In Michigan a small company engaged in making guitars by hand according to traditional methods was recently acquired by a gang of venture capitalist bros. The new management decided to fire much of the staff and insist that in the future their "handmade" guitars be manufactured with computer-guided machines. They dumped several million dollars into remodeling the workshop as an Instagrammable tourist "experience" and partnered with Rolling Stone LLC to "incorporate a wealth of music and pop culture into the renovation," whatever that means. Heritage Guitar used to be a place where skilled tradesmen made beautiful objects. Now it's going to be one more destination where suburban white people can gawk at screen exhibits and eat bad overpriced branded meals — imagine the $17 Jimi Hendrix Psychedelic Mushroom Burgers, the $12 side of Van Morrison "Sweet Thing" Potato Fries — and buy merchandise direct from sweatshops. Robot-guided tours, consultant-designed menus, officially licensed T-shirts: This is rock and roll, baby.

Examples like this can be multiplied infinitely. Appliances are cheaper than ever and do 500 different things — tell you what time it is, glow a luminous blue, allow you to write computer coded schedules into them — except what they are meant to. Trying to figure out how to make a pot of coffee after the LED screen went out on a friend's $40 Target machine recently reminded me how glad I am to own an old-fashioned one-button Bunn. Yes, it cost me $170. No, it does not double as an entertainment device, unless you get your jollies by listening to the sound of water percolating. But it will serve my family for longer than I have been alive.

Most Americans would rather have junk, though. Given a choice between purchasing a handful of moderately expensive items and buying replaceable crap whenever they want — and probably having it shipped rather than entering a store — people will choose the latter unless they are very rich. Luxury goods are now the only way around the cheap stuff quandary. It's fine that very nice things exist and that some people can afford them. What's crazy is expanding the definition of a luxury to include things like socks made of actual wool rather than plastic or a flip-phone whose battery lasts for more than five hours.

The rise of garbage is, roughly speaking, synonymous with the story conservatives like to tell about the supposed prosperity of the last several decades. It might be impossible to purchase a pair of trousers that last more than a year, but you can buy five of them for roughly the same portion of your income that one would have cost in 1950. Never mind that this is because they are made of cheap material by people in Southeast Asia who are treated little better than slaves. Out of sight, out of mind.

What is the solution to the cheap stuff crisis? The first step is to hasten the end of an arrangement in which it's possible for our companies to rely upon cheap foreign labor. This wouldn't necessarily have to take the form of tariffs; it would be better, in fact, if it involved forcing American corporations that do business abroad to adhere to the same labor standards they would abide by if they were making things here. In practice, at least at first, the result would be the same, though: Companies would decide that having a union workforce in Indiana is not really such a bad arrangement after all.

Increasing labor costs would in turn mean that prices would go up. People would have no choice but to buy fewer things. If you're only purchasing one tenth as many socks or buying a toaster that costs at least slightly more than an actual slice of toast at a fashionable D.C. brunch spot, you're going to insist on quality. Companies will have to deliver.

Finally, it's absolutely necessary to prosecute out of existence corporations like Apple whose business models depend upon a strategy of planned obsolescence. There is no reason that a telephone should not be made to last 15 or 20 years. The corded landline in the basement at my grandparents' house is older than I am. (Try talking on one of these sometime: You will be amazed that it is possible that a call could sound so clear.) Nerds will whine about the all-consuming importance of the new features they are missing out on, but their appetites are debased and unsustainable. Our great-grandchildren will thank us when they do not inhabit a world that looks like Pixar's Wall-E because we felt the need to throw our supposedly outmoded gadgets in the trash every other year.

This all might sound radical but really it isn't. The end of cheap stuff would simply be a return to the way that people lived and consumed things in the United States within living memory. It would be more ethical, more environmentally sound, and less ugly. It would also be better for our feet.
 

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,011
Reaction score
5,049
I don't know what the hell Walther is doing to his jeans, but my Wranglers last a long ass time
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
The Week's Matthew Walther just published an article titled "America's junk epidemic":

This is something I've been passionate about for a long time but it won't ever happen. America is a culture that loves deals, loves cheap sh!t and the churn rate helps the economy. The policies mentioned would make the world a better place to live but no one wants to live there except a few.

We are the wealthiest nation by far and we build nothing of lasting value.
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
I don't know what the hell Walther is doing to his jeans, but my Wranglers last a long ass time

I'm with you on that.

For a few years, when I was in college, my Mother would get me a pair of blue jeans for my birthday in July and another pair for Christmas. 'Twas a sweet deal.

The newest were my "dress" jeans.

I also got pretty good at sewing on patches.

Then there were cut off shorts.

Hell, some Levi's I wore, in one form or another, for five years.

Then they became rags for washing my car.

Then they became kindling for campfires.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Whiskey gonna fight Shapiro IRL.

97054feb7c6de14973cdb9e6736c48fd.jpg
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
A screenshot of a tweet of an article commenting on another article.

You know even decent subreddits have submission standards better than this. I'm not saying you have to match Legacy, but come on Wizards.

Here are both articles:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.7b9bc280ff99

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27954/wapo-columnist-pens-frightening-defense-marxism-ben-shapiro

It's probably worth noting that the original article doesn't mention Marxism. And given how broad and gray different definitions of socialism can be, to paint her article as a "frightening defense of Marxism" makes me eyeroll pretty hard.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
A screenshot of a tweet of an article commenting on another article.

You know even decent subreddits have submission standards better than this. I'm not saying you have to match Legacy, but come on Wizards.

Here are both articles:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.7b9bc280ff99

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27954/wapo-columnist-pens-frightening-defense-marxism-ben-shapiro

It's probably worth noting that the original article doesn't mention Marxism. And given how broad and gray different definitions of socialism can be, to paint her article as a "frightening defense of Marxism" makes me eyeroll pretty hard.
My main point was that Shapiro is interacting with Breunig. That means something to lots of people who post and read here. The tweet itself is the point.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
I'm with you on that.

For a few years, when I was in college, my Mother would get me a pair of blue jeans for my birthday in July and another pair for Christmas. 'Twas a sweet deal.

The newest were my "dress" jeans.

I also got pretty good at sewing on patches.

Then there were cut off shorts.

Hell, some Levi's I wore, in one form or another, for five years.

Then they became rags for washing my car.

Then they became kindling for campfires.


... and then you wore them to concerts.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The Week's Matthew Walther just published an article titled "America's junk epidemic":
While I'm sympathetic to the author's thesis, this article reeks of elitism. I don't know how many people CHOOSE cheap crap versus how many people can only afford cheap crap. You can't buy handmade in America Allen Edmonds shoes for $300 (on sale) if you don't have $300.

Also, I believe you, Whiskeyjack, once ridiculed me for my hardwood-and-aniline-leather sofa I bought for $3,000. That thing will long outlive me and is right in line with this article, but you advised me to go with the cheap crap because my kids are just going to ruin it anyways.

Found it:

Why buy nice furniture when you have young kids? They're just going to trash it anyway.
 
Last edited:

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,011
Reaction score
5,049
Smdh, if you're not sitting on a bed of nails, are you really approaching Lent with its penitential nature in mind?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Whiskey gonna fight Shapiro IRL.

You saw her debate at Acton. Liz doesn't need my help to handle Shapiro.

While I'm sympathetic to the author's thesis, this article reeks of elitism. I don't know how many people CHOOSE cheap crap versus how many people can only afford cheap crap. You can't buy handmade in America Allen Edmonds shoes for $300 (on sale) if you don't have $300.

As Walther pointed out in the article, within living memory most of the products purchased and used by Americans were manufactured in this country. It wasn't the case that only wealthy Americans could afford shoes and everyone else went barefoot.

Also, I believe you, Whiskeyjack, once ridiculed me for my hardwood-and-aniline-leather sofa I bought for $3,000. That thing will long outlive me and is right in line with this article, but you advised me to go with the cheap crap because my kids are just going to ruin it anyways.

Found it:

  • I didn't ridicule you, but simply suggested it was unwise to purchase such a luxurious piece of furniture when you still have young children;
  • Well-made furniture that can be passed down to one's descendants is a good investment assuming you can keep it in good shape;
  • Again, as Walther mentions in his article, the only way to get a well-made piece of furniture today is to buy an expensive luxury piece. Prior to globalization, there were sturdy American-made options available for affordable prices, and many men crafted their own furniture. There's nothing elitist about pointing out the superiority of that arrangement.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Look at Whiskey try to backstep worse than Whoreson Junior in Witcher 3 over ridiculing wizards....

also, I've yet to see anyone really come close to hanging with Shapiro in a debate. He may be a few things, but some dim-wit push over ain't one of them.
 
Top