opeboism: opebo defined

[John Dibble]

We actually debated this point before, opebo. Did you forget the budget that I worked out, in detail no less, months ago for a person making $6.50? It was a budget you could actually retire on, IIRC.

Yes, I remember your highly unrealistic budget.

Hah, says the guy who's never actually been on a real budget. You've got mommy and daddy to pay your way - you'd treat your money quite differently if you actually had to earn it. I'd bet I know how to stretch a dollar far better than you, and I further would bet I have a better idea of the prices of things in the US.

People can see the budget I'm talking about here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19303.msg416472#msg416472

Heck, going further into the post you 'take your hat off' to my budget overall, saying you believed I could survive on that wage. Thus, I think I've adequately beat the crap out of your 'inadequate for even a meager existence' statement.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We actually debated this point before, opebo. Did you forget the budget that I worked out, in detail no less, months ago for a person making $6.50? It was a budget you could actually retire on, IIRC.

Yes, I remember your highly unrealistic budget.

Hah, says the guy who's never actually been on a real budget. You've got mommy and daddy to pay your way - you'd treat your money quite differently if you actually had to earn it. I'd bet I know how to stretch a dollar far better than you, and I further would bet I have a better idea of the prices of things in the US.

People can see the budget I'm talking about here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19303.msg416472#msg416472

Heck, going further into the post you 'take your hat off' to my budget overall, saying you believed I could survive on that wage. Thus, I think I've adequately beat the crap out of your 'inadequate for even a meager existence' statement.

Your calculation is terrible. It assumes a very very low cost of living area. 2 bedroom apartment for $500 a month? I dare you to call landlords in the bay area and tell them that's what you're looking for.

[John Dibble]

Your calculation is terrible. It assumes a very very low cost of living area. 2 bedroom apartment for $500 a month? I dare you to call landlords in the bay area and tell them that's what you're looking for.

My calculations are based on the cost of living where I live and the states around me - they are realistic. The apartment cost was based on an online search of apartments, and is once again realistic for my area. Further, I would assume that wages are higher in California than in the area I was building the budget on anyways, so the cost of apartments in the bay area are not relevant(I would also think that bay area apartments are of a different calibur than our budget is looking to rent).

[??????????]

It would be impossible to properly raise a family on $15/hour. 

No it isn't. But I wouldn't expect someone who doesnt work to know that.

[opebo]

Your calculation is terrible. It assumes a very very low cost of living area. 2 bedroom apartment for $500 a month? I dare you to call landlords in the bay area and tell them that's what you're looking for.

jfern is, as usual, correct.  Even in backward, economically depressed St. Louis, one would be very lucky to find a 'studio' or 'efficiency' in a bad neighborhood for any less than the $500 quoted.  Two bedroom apartments would be more, and even one bedrooms in a decent neighborhood would be about $600-800.  This in a town where most new jobs created pay less than $10/hour.

It would be impossible to properly raise a family on $15/hour. 

No it isn't. But I wouldn't expect someone who doesnt work to know that.

Didn't I say 'adequately'?  I'm sure one could raise them for even less under an overpass.

[John Dibble]

Your calculation is terrible. It assumes a very very low cost of living area. 2 bedroom apartment for $500 a month? I dare you to call landlords in the bay area and tell them that's what you're looking for.

jfern is, as usual, correct.  Even in backward, economically depressed St. Louis, one would be very lucky to find a 'studio' or 'efficiency' in a bad neighborhood for any less than the $500 quoted.  Two bedroom apartments would be more, and even one bedrooms in a decent neighborhood would be about $600-800.  This in a town where most new jobs created pay less than $10/hour.

I don't think the apartment I searched for before was actually in the St. Louis area - I believe we were assuming it was a Wal-Mart job, so it was more of a suburban area. But anyways, I did an apartment search for the St. Louis area, so all these are either in St. Louis or in driving distance:

2 Bedroom, rent $640/month, with roomate only $320

2 Bedroom, rent $570-$630, w/ roommate $285-$315

2 Bedroom, rent $599-$619, w/ roommate $299.50-$259.50

2 Bedroom, rent $499, w/roommate $249.50

2 Bedroom, rent $499, w/roommate $249.50

2 bedroom, rent $459-$494, w/roommate $229.50-$247

Plenty of 1 bedrooms under $500 too, though I won't bother posting them unless you don't believe me. Considering the budget I made was specifically for having a roommate to pay half the rent, I think the above is sufficient to prove the realistic expectations of my budget as far as housing goes at the least.

[MaC]

Opeboism to me seems to be:

1. If I like it, everyone who opposes it hates freedom and is a prude
2. If I don't like it, freedom doesn't matter or it has negatives to some group, so it isn't free

very close to what I said.  Finally someone understands.  Opebo doesn't fit into ideological standpoints.  I don't consider him a liberal, just a statist in that everything I like should be legal or made legal and everything I don't like should be banned or illegal.

What's scary about this is there's really lots of people in our country who agree with this thinking.

[opebo]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

[Dr. Cynic]

Y'know, Opebo can be really nasty at times, and his views aren't mainstream, but isn't that part of his charm. He is such an institution on the forum that I don't think it would be as much fun without him. Sure, he's insulting, condescending, and at times a total asshole, but opebo is some of the best entertainment we have.

[Alcon]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

Scared of being critiqued, Opebo?  Makes sense, because you're just a "populist" at heart - everything you like legal, everything else illegal!

[opebo]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

Scared of being critiqued, Opebo?  Makes sense, because you're just a "populist" at heart - everything you like legal, everything else illegal!

No, you are merely repeating a misrepresentation of my views concocted by a lot of simpletons, Alcon.  Obviously I am a fairly standard liberal, and not a populist by any stretch of the imagination.

[MaC]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

when I have I ever said anything should be religious?

[John Dibble]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

when I have I ever said anything should be religious?

Ditto - I don't like either party. They're both pretty good at infringing on freedom.

[Alcon]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

Scared of being critiqued, Opebo?  Makes sense, because you're just a "populist" at heart - everything you like legal, everything else illegal!

No, you are merely repeating a misrepresentation of my views concocted by a lot of simpletons, Alcon.  Obviously I am a fairly standard liberal, and not a populist by any stretch of the imagination.

You support banning things you don't like, and allowing things you do.

I support plenty of things I don't like being legal.

You're a statist philosophically;  I'm more for freedoms I disagree with.

By the way, I'm not religious.  I don't know how many times I have to tell you that before it gets through your head.  Can you quantify it for me?

[DanielX]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

Scared of being critiqued, Opebo?  Makes sense, because you're just a "populist" at heart - everything you like legal, everything else illegal!

No, you are merely repeating a misrepresentation of my views concocted by a lot of simpletons, Alcon.  Obviously I am a fairly standard liberal, and not a populist by any stretch of the imagination.

You support banning things you don't like, and allowing things you do.

I support plenty of things I don't like being legal.

You're a statist philosophically;  I'm more for freedoms I disagree with.

By the way, I'm not religious.  I don't know how many times I have to tell you that before it gets through your head.  Can you quantify it for me?

I believe opeboism is defined as opebo taking a series of terms such as 'religious', 'liberal', 'fascist', 'freedom fighter', etc. and giving them definitions which fit his world-view but have little bearing on reality.

[opebo]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

when I have I ever said anything should be religious?

Ditto - I don't like either party. They're both pretty good at infringing on freedom.

You poor saps are helping the Religious Party into power by not voting Democrat.  Heck a lot of you even vote for Religious Party candidates at times. 

You support banning things you don't like, and allowing things you do.

No, I don't, and I wish you would quite lying.  You simply typing a claim doesn't make it so.  Do you expect me to type a list of things I don't like but don't want to ban?  You're not worth the trouble, but here goes:
McDonalds
Walmart
golf
football
hamburgers
Pizza
fats
dumbs
I could go on but as you can see the excersize is stupid. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, now you make a list.  Oh wait, no need as I am not making any spurious claims about you.  Except that you're a ing .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  Again, your typing something doesn't make it so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said you were a religious, I merely said that those libertarians support the Religious Party.  You're not even a libertarian are you?

[MaC]

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

when I have I ever said anything should be religious?

Ditto - I don't like either party. They're both pretty good at infringing on freedom.

You poor saps are helping the Religious Party into power by not voting Democrat.  Heck a lot of you even vote for Religious Party candidates at times. 

By that logic, were voting third party to help out the Democrats by not directly voting for the Religious Party.  Think if the libertarians are still right wings, we're doing what Nader people did to get Bush in power, only for the Democrats.  You should be thanking us.

[Alcon]

You support banning things you don't like, and allowing things you do.

No, I don't, and I wish you would quite lying.  You simply typing a claim doesn't make it so.  Do you expect me to type a list of things I don't like but don't want to ban?  You're not worth the trouble, but here goes:
McDonalds
Walmart
golf
football
hamburgers
Pizza
fats
dumbs
I could go on but as you can see the excersize is stupid.

I'm sure I would "quite" lying, but you might just be confusing lying with being incorrect.  For instance, you are incorrect 95% of the time, but I don't necessarily think you are lying because of it.

Obviously, I don't like polka, but I'm not calling for a ban.  Just because you can make a list of things you don't like but don't want banned doesn't mean you aren't a "populist."  There are plenty of things Jake likes but doesn't want banned, yet you still call him a fascist.

On the other hand, there are actual things of significance - i.e. Christianity - that you've more or less expressed a desire to ban.  Those actually matter, and, yes, Opebo, you are a Cosmo Kramer-style "populist" and nothing more.

I mean, pizza?  Come on.  Just because you don't support banning foods you like doesn't make you any less of a fascist, Opebo.

I never said you were a religious, I merely said that those libertarians support the Religious Party.  You're not even a libertarian are you?

Yes, I'm a libertarian - although not a Libertarian.  By the way, you have (incorrectly) said I'm a "religious" in the past.

Just because you type it doesn't make it true, fascist.

[opebo]

I'm sure I would "quite" lying, but you might just be confusing lying with being incorrect.  For instance, you are incorrect 95% of the time, but I don't necessarily think you are lying because of it.

Obviously, I don't like polka, but I'm not calling for a ban.  Just because you can make a list of things you don't like but don't want banned doesn't mean you aren't a "populist."  There are plenty of things Jake likes but doesn't want banned, yet you still call him a fascist.

In point of fact, what are you talking about?  What have I ever suggested banning?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Alcon, I said I wanted to feed the christians to lions.  I never said anything about banning the religion.  And regardless I assure you my ideas are about as far from populist as possible - they are highly unpopular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm a libertarian - although not a Libertarian.  By the way, you have (incorrectly) said I'm a "religious" in the past.
[/quote]

Oh that was probably in response to some intolerance on your part - maybe disapproving of 'underage' sex parters or some such thing.  Anyway, you might as well join the Religious Party if you're not voting Democrat.

[Alcon]

I'm sure I would "quite" lying, but you might just be confusing lying with being incorrect.  For instance, you are incorrect 95% of the time, but I don't necessarily think you are lying because of it.

Obviously, I don't like polka, but I'm not calling for a ban.  Just because you can make a list of things you don't like but don't want banned doesn't mean you aren't a "populist."  There are plenty of things Jake likes but doesn't want banned, yet you still call him a fascist.

In point of fact, what are you talking about?  What have I ever suggested banning?

Well, capitalism.  You just make ridiculous "oh, it's for the poor people!" excuses, when it's really obvious that it's just because you see capitalism as a reflection of your wealthy parents.  In fact, you don't seem to know much about politics.  You just complain to high heaven, and suggest leftist means to fix everything.

You then whine constantly about "prudes."  How is your economic prudery any better than their social prudery?  For someone who proudly claims to be a sociopath, your faux interest in poor people seems out of place.

So, you're an economic fascist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Alcon, I said I wanted to feed the christians to lions.  I never said anything about banning the religion.  And regardless I assure you my ideas are about as far from populist as possible - they are highly unpopular.

I'm using the bastardised definition of "populist" here, which is why I keep quoting it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm a libertarian - although not a Libertarian.  By the way, you have (incorrectly) said I'm a "religious" in the past.

Oh that was probably in response to some intolerance on your part - maybe disapproving of 'underage' sex parters or some such thing.  Anyway, you might as well join the Religious Party if you're not voting Democrat.[/quote]

Again, your intolerance is showing.  You're intolerant of capitalism because your parents didn't give you enough attention or something.  You're a Sunday Fascist, so to speak.

Basically, I'm sick of all of your posts being whining about one thing or another.  Whining seems to be all you do.  You know virtually nothing about politics, as evidenced by economic views that even far-leftists think would be self-defeating.  For someone so concerned with being the smartest person in the room, you've never come off as particularly bright to me.

[opebo]

So, you're an economic fascist.

Not at all, Alcon.  What you fail to understand is that the status quo - capitalism - is just as arbitrarily imposed by State power as anything I have proposed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so you just mean that I'm not a libertarian - true!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Alcon, why should anyone tolerate any particular State imposed system if they don't like it (for example capitalism/fascism).  One may simply choose another.  That is what politics is all about, Alcon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, given the atrocious condition of the benighted land from which I spring, I suppose it might seem like whining.  But, Alcon, how is the Bad Place to be made better if we don't at least recognize how bad it is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Alcon, my economic prescriptions are standard, traditional liberalism of the FDR through LBJ era.  What you call 'far leftists' nowadays are really just defeatists who have accepted right wing propagand and are afraid to stand for something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, yes, alcon dislikes opebo.  I'm sure it felt good to get that off your chest, but it doesn't particularly interest me.

[Alcon]

Well, you conveniently ignore that you now live in a country where:

1. People die sooner.
2. People are more likely to be impoverished, even adjusted for cost of living.
3. Disease is significantly more rampant.
4. Educational opportunities are lesser.

You post pictures highlighting how beautiful it is.  Good for you.  Now, if you weren't a spoiled rich kid and had to work a day in your life, which country would you rather live in?

What exactly does your interest in politics stem from, anyway?  You don't seem to take much joy in reading up about economic matters, since from what I can tell your knowledge of economics doesn't go past "the more the government controls it, the better off workers are."  You seem not to do anything when it comes to social issues but complain about the same things over and over again.  I don't get why you are here, conversing with residents of the Bad Place who are no worse off in life than you are.

[opebo]

Now, if you weren't a spoiled rich kid and had to work a day in your life, which country would you rather live in?

I doubt that such a life would be bearable in either location, Alcon!

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It is basically a moderate, compromise political philosophy, and as far as I can see barely distinguishable from mainstream American liberalism.

Mainstream liberals don't advocate a $15 minimum wage, a welfare state as big as you propose, lower the age of consent to 12, or feeding the religious to lions.

[dead0man]

My favorite part of this thread I thought was going to be opebo's budget on page 1 (200$ a month for entertainment and $450 a month in savings!? and you complain?!  WOW!), but then after politely exchanging posts for awhile and then realizing he was in way over his head he drops this gem.

Why don't you power-worshiping 'libertarians' go critique your own political philosophy.  And while you're at it, please change all your avatars to Religious Party - because if you're not supporting the Democrats, you're supporting the theocracy.

Reds are so cute when they get angry!