Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Trump's communications director quits

why? people are utility maximizers - some people are happy to scrape by on welfare rather than taking slightly more money from a low skill, low wage job they have to work 40 hours a week for. Many people are also short-sighted and don't see the value of the experience from a low skill, often minimum wage job or high school diploma necessary to get that next job that pays more. Also, there's the reality that those on certain entitlements lose certain benefits by working and/or earning "too much." Welfare gives lazy people an out or forces them to make decisions they wouldn't normally make without it - that's not to say everyone on welfare is lazy but if you think everyone on welfare is on welfare because they can't work, that's legitimately delusional.

Of course extremes and exceptions exists, but I just have a very different view of what most people are like than you do. I think people that don't want more stuff badly enough to work for it is far more rare than you do and even most of the lazy asses sitting on their couch watching TV all day got there after trying and not seeing a way forward. I don't believe people have changed. I believe it's more difficult these days for a non-skilled worker to make a living. These people still want more out of life and would be working if the job market looked like what it used to look like (obvious exceptions exists.)

I think few people "are happy to scrape by on welfare rather than taking slightly more money from a low skill, low wage job they have to work 40 hours a week for." I think that's a myth some people tell themselves so they can blame others for the state they're in and ignore the repercussions of the changes in our economy.
 
when I compare my parents to my grandparents, I'd have to say my parents were better educated and "smarter," but a hell of a lot less streetwise. my grandparents seemed to have more skepticism and cynicism.

I don't know if that was just my own family, or what, but I always had the sense that my grandparents - having lived through the Great Depression, albeit as kids - still understood that life was a struggle.

The "welfare state" maybe lulled my parents into a false sense of security? They seemed to believe "they earned it" instead of "good jobs, strong unions, good public education, and cheap college" were all things regular Americans had to fight hard for, sometimes losing their own lives in the process. they bought into all this crap about "social welfare" being handouts to lazy people, and so voted for Reagan, tax cuts, education cuts, anti-union measures, etc. , and then 10-20 years later were confused when they saw their kids' tuition bills, loan balances, stru then they allggles to find employment, etc.

"Where did we go wrong? must be the liberals..."

Well...thats the narrative of many who claim that being unionized isn't necessary anymore, that they only protect the lazy and malcontents, that their leadership are corrupt...yadda-yadda...b/c just like welfare recipients, if some are, that means all are.

Those who don't live in states and cities where the bloody battles took place are the ones who might think that the 40 hour workweek, FLSA, a living wage...ect was the result of "benevolent and generous" free-market capitalism.
 
Last edited:
I vaguely recall talking about it here. I think you hadn't seen the part of the game that I played, but the part I played involved some story scene and someone groveling and begging for their life and you need to shoot them with your shotgun to move forward with the game. Maybe there was some other way, but with this friend sitting there walking me through it, that was what it was and I hated it. There is another game I've played with a part like that and I loved that game, but still hated the part about shooting someone that's not shooting back.

yeah, I hadn't played that far.

In San Andreas there's some of that; I didn't like it either, and I hated that they made killing innocent, or relatively innocent people necessary to advance the plot at some points. I figured it was the game developers thinking they were "edgy" and "pushing the envelope."

GTA III, and Vice City only had you killing people who deserved it (though of course you could go on rampages if you wanted)

I think in the one I never played (IV? the 2nd one set in NYC) had points where you could choose not to kill someone and then the game would play out from that point differently
 
"people are utility maximizers"

LOL, and you take yourself so seriously.
 
"people are utility maximizers"

LOL, and you take yourself so seriously.

weak, even for you. I wonder if you even know what that means.

I don't take myself that seriously, but I don't take you seriously at all because you're seriously one of the dumbest people I've come across. For example...

when I compare my parents to my grandparents, I'd have to say my parents were better educated and "smarter," but a hell of a lot less streetwise. my grandparents seemed to have more skepticism and cynicism.

I don't know if that was just my own family, or what, but I always had the sense that my grandparents - having lived through the Great Depression, albeit as kids - still understood that life was a struggle.

The "welfare state" maybe lulled my parents into a false sense of security? They seemed to believe "they earned it" instead of "good jobs, strong unions, good public education, and cheap college" were all things regular Americans had to fight hard for, sometimes losing their own lives in the process. they bought into all this crap about "social welfare" being handouts to lazy people, and so voted for Reagan, tax cuts, education cuts, anti-union measures, etc. , and then 10-20 years later were confused when they saw their kids' tuition bills, loan balances, struggles to find employment, etc.

"Where did we go wrong? must be the liberals..."
 
Last edited:
weak, even for you. I wonder if you even know what that means?


I don't take myself that seriously, but I don't take you seriously at all because you're seriously one of the dumbest people I've come across.

So just b/c you believe that you don't take yourself seriously, it still means jackshit to members here who read your posts, and many if not most, would likely disagree.
 
So just b/c you believe that you don't take yourself seriously, it still means jackshit to members here who read your posts, and many if not most, would likely disagree.

boy, you sure know how to hurt a guy's feelings.
 
boy, you sure know how to hurt a guy's feelings.

The only member who can really make a case for not taking himself seriously on this forum, doesn't need to be named. The rest of us who regularly post are being serious much more often than not, from what I've read.
 
Last edited:
I didn't hate it but I can't imagine trying to introduce someone to video games and that being the choice. I've also never been a huge GTA guy. I still haven't bought the latest installment and it's been out for years.

so what would you recommend? After not playing games since college, I tried to play a mid 90s Bond game that my cousin was really into but it didn't hold my attention. In college I mostly played sports games - Nintendo tecmo bowl and blades of steel and 5 or 6 of us would have competitions to see who could finish Super Mario Bros the fastest. Then NHL hockey was all I played when a roommate got a Sega console. At Pinball Pete's it was the multiplayer auto racing game - I think we could get 8 on at once.

I've kinda wanted to get a console and try some of those first person shooter games but I don't want to become a sociopath and my 8 year old is really into video games (mostly Minecraft) and we're trying to discourage or at least limit it so buying an Xbox so I can try Call of Duty probably isn't the right message.
 
I think few people "are happy to scrape by on welfare rather than taking slightly more money from a low skill, low wage job they have to work 40 hours a week for." I think that's a myth some people tell themselves so they can blame others for the state they're in and ignore the repercussions of the changes in our economy.

I don't get the inference where everyone who is receiving welfare never had a job or not for very long. My income was reduced dramatically when I became disabled, and retrospectively rue my decision to continue paying the max 10% pretaxed into my 401K-like defined contributions plan, when I turned 50, instead of cutting it down a few points instead for paying biweekly into the two short and long term disability coverage programs, which also were available. I would much rather never having become disabled.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the inference where everyone who is receiving welfare never had a job or not for very long.

You're speaking generally, right? You're not implying that I made that inference.
 
You're speaking generally, right? You're not implying that I made that inference.

Yeah, no I wasn't implying that you had, but that has been the impression I've had and observed from and when reading posts online, especially those who think that "Atlas Shrugged" is a Randian work of non-fiction.
 
Last edited:
weak, even for you. I wonder if you even know what that means.

I don't take myself that seriously, but I don't take you seriously at all because you're seriously one of the dumbest people I've come across. For example...

the idea that people are "utility maximizing" robots is self-evidently false. it's absurd to even think that in the first place.

the idea that social welfare - ie unemployment insurance - made people lazy is false as well. as if no one was ever lazy before the advent of that? get real.

also, I do not believe you don't take yourself "that" seriously.
 
Yeah, no I wasn't implying that you had, but that has been the impression I've had and observed from and when reading posts online, especially those who think that "Atlas Shrugged" is a Randian work of non-fiction.

Thought so. Just making sure. I worry about a backlash against disability assistance. After reading that article about how the system is being abused in places of high unemployment, it seems to me like we are more likely to "fix" the problem with sweeping cuts across the board rather than by figuring out some way to separate the abuse from the legitimate cases.

I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged by the way. I think some people use the book to justify being assholes, but I still really enjoyed it.
 
Thought so. Just making sure. I worry about a backlash against disability assistance. After reading that article about how the system is being abused in places of high unemployment, it seems to me like we are more likely to "fix" the problem with sweeping cuts across the board rather than by figuring out some way to separate the abuse from the legitimate cases.

I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged by the way. I think some people use the book to justify being assholes, but I still really enjoyed it.

I never thought that it was very easy to be approved for SSD, but maybe it has changed from the 2/3rds who were denied on average upon first applying, or maybe more now on appeal. My wife has been denied SSI and Medicaid twice, b/c my monthly income is slightly over the "qualifying" threshold, and we had even considered getting divorced in the recent past for those very reasons.

I would advise the breadwinners to look into obtaining at least short-term disability coverage, based on my experiences.
 
You do know that this is a societal problem that goes back to the beginning of time, don't you?

Sure, but I had heard we were past all this.

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
 
so what would you recommend? After not playing games since college, I tried to play a mid 90s Bond game that my cousin was really into but it didn't hold my attention. In college I mostly played sports games - Nintendo tecmo bowl and blades of steel and 5 or 6 of us would have competitions to see who could finish Super Mario Bros the fastest. Then NHL hockey was all I played when a roommate got a Sega console. At Pinball Pete's it was the multiplayer auto racing game - I think we could get 8 on at once.

I've kinda wanted to get a console and try some of those first person shooter games but I don't want to become a sociopath and my 8 year old is really into video games (mostly Minecraft) and we're trying to discourage or at least limit it so buying an Xbox so I can try Call of Duty probably isn't the right message.

Our family just got the Nintendo Switch for Christmas. Our oldest will be 6 this month, Super Mario Odyssey (for Switch) is his first full fledged game if you don't count the sports games on my PS4 he 'played'. It's a game that is entirely appropriate for a kid but plenty entertaining (and challenging) enough for an adult. We also have Zelda, Rocket League, and Splatoon 2 which are all age appropriate and quite a bit of fun. Minecraft and a bunch of it's expansions are also available on the Switch.

So far, the Switch's biggest detraction by most people is my biggest positive for my kid playing it. There is no multi player/voice chat functionality (yet). I don't have to worry about my kid stumbling across some little mutant spewing nasty language or who knows what during a friendly gaming session. Eventually something will probably be added but I trust with Nintendo's consistent marketing towards younger crowds that it will be done properly.

There are some titles marketed more towards adults for Switch like Doom and Skyrim.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top