Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[blake]

much like most of your smilies

[lol wow]

Rofl draftking dodging socialist jim is here also lol at blake getting roped into this you think if you type enough ur gonna change this idiots opinion cmon chang

[blake]

i suppose spending 37 pages on the definition of "lost" may have been a bit much.

[blake]

but it's not like i was going to spend that time paying attention to my family

[lol wow]

Rofl naaaailed them

[gimmick]

gimmick, would you say that conceding is something you're capable of doing?

Sure if i'm wrong. I don't just to make you happy. I'm not really for participation prizes. Should we return to that question you gave me?

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

So do you agree?

For the credit card roulette analogy there needs to be a added portion of lobster mac 'n cheese on the bill. Who ever pays never gets any. Michael and OSA always eat it and never pay. Now it's a decent analogy. Even when you don't lose, your meal isn't free. You don't gain anything by playing. Same thing with that 24bil. Oh and if you do stop playing you come ahead a fraction of lobster mac 'n cheese. Like that 3.4bil you can spend the money how ever you like.

[gimmick]

Ok we don't have to go with literal meaning of lost. We usually do, but whatever.

I don't know if i need to ask if you agree with your own question now. This one.

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

My point is that it isn't a unique offer in it's nature. Saying no to Amazon doesn't mean NY has no way of using tax breaks to attract businesses. That's why it's wrong to say NY "lost" 60k jobs. They might not get as good deals or they might get better deals. I don't know. But i know they can get offers and if they feel like it they can invest in small businesses. Oh and that's how AOC gets her 25k jobs. I think that was the original question.

this doesn't make any sense. if new york was capable of snapping its fingers and adding $24 billion in tax revenue and increasing 60,000 jobs without amazon, it already would have.

I'm guessing you didn't read the part you bolded.

[gimmick]

i suppose spending 37 pages on the definition of "lost" may have been a bit much.

I was fine with the literal meaning. We started adjusting it so you can be "right" by going against basic economical concepts.

[blake]

i suppose spending 37 pages on the definition of "lost" may have been a bit much.

I was fine with the literal meaning. We started adjusting it so you can be "right" by going against basic economical concepts.

there's a reason literally no one will agree with you in this thread

[blake]

gimmick, would you say that conceding is something you're capable of doing?

Sure if i'm wrong. I don't just to make you happy. I'm not really for participation prizes. Should we return to that question you gave me?

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

So do you agree?

i don't get this. are you trying to get me to say that amazon didn't lose jobs, it simply didn't gain them?

sure, i'm fine with that. are you?

[blake]

Sure if i'm wrong. I don't just to make you happy. I'm not really for participation prizes. Should we return to that question you gave me?

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

So do you agree?

i don't get this. are you trying to get me to say that amazon didn't lose jobs, it simply didn't gain them?

sure, i'm fine with that. are you?

and to be clear -- there is a 0.0% chance gimmick will agree with this as he would view it as a concession.

[gimmick]

I was fine with the literal meaning. We started adjusting it so you can be "right" by going against basic economical concepts.

there's a reason literally no one will agree with you in this thread

By your earlier definition that would mean they all agree. So i guess thx.

"i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute." -Blake from few pages ago-

[blake]

there's a reason literally no one will agree with you in this thread

By your earlier definition that would mean they all agree. So i guess thx.

"i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute." -Blake from few pages ago-

does anyone have any idea what this clown is saying?

ANYONE?

[blake]

WELL???

[gimmick]

Sure if i'm wrong. I don't just to make you happy. I'm not really for participation prizes. Should we return to that question you gave me?

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

So do you agree?

i don't get this. are you trying to get me to say that amazon didn't lose jobs, it simply didn't gain them?

sure, i'm fine with that. are you?

No one ever gains jobs in the long term by paying for them. The jobs you "win" when you pay for them equal to the jobs you lost when some one else "won". Doing nothing is the only way to gain.

When everyone pays for jobs only corporations gain.

Do you think someone besides Michael and OSA gains anything in the credit card roulette example?

[gimmick]

By your earlier definition that would mean they all agree. So i guess thx.

"i've cited to a bunch of them above so i'll assume that part of this discussion is not in dispute." -Blake from few pages ago-

does anyone have any idea what this clown is saying?

ANYONE?

I assumed you meant that if no one speaks it means everyone agrees with something that was said. I mean you said it. I think it's retarded but whatever.

Are you now saying that silence means everyone agrees with what you said and when they are silent everyone disagrees with what i said?

[blake]

i don't get this. are you trying to get me to say that amazon didn't lose jobs, it simply didn't gain them?

sure, i'm fine with that. are you?

No one ever gains jobs in the long term by paying for them. The jobs you "win" when you pay for them equal to the jobs you lost when some one else "won". Doing nothing is the only way to gain.

i wonder if the new yorkers who lost out on all those jobs or those people reliant on government tax dollars and services will applaud AOC's heroic stand.

but seriously, how did i guess you wouldn't concede it? you are somehow spinning the fact that new york will lose out on 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue as a positive for new york.

our debate ends here. i will never get you to concede, but i did persuade everyone else reading. thanks for playing.

[gimmick]

No one ever gains jobs in the long term by paying for them. The jobs you "win" when you pay for them equal to the jobs you lost when some one else "won". Doing nothing is the only way to gain.

i wonder if the new yorkers who lost out on all those jobs or those people reliant on government tax dollars and services will applaud AOC's heroic stand.

but seriously, how did i guess you wouldn't concede it? you are somehow spinning the fact that new york will lose out on 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue as a positive for new york.

our debate ends here. i will never get you to concede, but i did persuade everyone else reading. thanks for playing.

Yup you win a prize for participating. Yay.

[OSA]

You leave my lobster mac and cheese out of this.


We are already past that and onto A5 Wagyu playboy.


Just sit there and eat your 15.99 lobster and steak special from Outback.

[gimmick]

Rake is good because you only pay it when you win. That would be Blake's argument.