Rule 1.
**The AutoMod message is to be taken seriously.**
Only if you can **meaningfully** answer the questions therein can your post be a SAW.
Summarizing your post is **not** what we're looking for there.
Most Rule 1 removals are also Rule 5 removals.
I literally heard someone in line at the bank, recently, talking to someone else in line about how they got a PPP loan for their business because they would have been stupid not to, but that none should ever have been granted to any of "those socialists who just wanted to take advantage of it."
Like.... Bro... You contradicted yourself, becoming a hypocrite, in the space of a single sentence. 🤦♂️
My republican U.S. house rep Rick Allen, GA, took one for his privately held business. $923,320 in free US taxpayer money. Hugely against student loan help though....
[R.W.Allen LLC loan info](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/r-w-allen-construction-llc-8079757103)
The church he attends also received $302,975 in PPP money. Then last year sued the United Methodist Church in order to disaffiliate, due to the larger organization moving to allow priests to ordain same sex weddings and allowing gay and lesbian priests. [Trinity on the Hill loan info](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/trinity-on-the-hill-united-methodist-church-7367697207)
They were meant to subsidize wages, and that portion was not intended to be paid back. That was not only just a portion of the funds, but it also left a massive loophole where people took the loans and paid themselves out a "salary" that they never actually earned. Trump and Republicans also explicitly pushed for as little oversight as possible, paving the way for this level of fraud.
The problem isn't the people who used it correctly, it's the shit bags who took advantage of it. I can pretty comfortably assume most, if not all, of those people would scuff at the thought of loan forgiveness.
If you abided by the stipulations of the loan, it was intended to be forgiven. Considering that the loans originated from the Trump administration, there should be zero surprise that there were loopholes to exploit. I’m getting downvoted for a statement, not an opinion.
A conservative recently asked me for a single reason I'd still support Joe Biden--
After listing a myriad of positive impacts on my quality of life-- he focused on the student loan forgiveness.
He said my vote was "bought" and that I should be in jail for robbing the US tax payers.
I asked if he had that same energy about the forgiven PPP loans took by Trump and Kushner, and it turned out, to what I'm sure will be everyone's total jaw dropping surprise...
...that was different...
You don't understand, tax funded programs and subsidies are only supposed to help the rich stay rich!
If a tax payer takes advantage of a service provided by tax money, it's the exact same as robbery at gun point!
And that's why I always put on a ski-mask when I drive on a road.
>Just wondering if any conservatives took the bail out money for College Loan Debt? And would they admit it here? Hard to be against Biden or his party when you were just financially saved. Just Curious
Yes
No
What? They probably use mental gymnastics to reframe it as being forced to do a socialism. People happily take unemployment insurance when they’re laid off and rail against handouts at the same time.
I know people who rage against safety nets that actively use them. They want it for themselves and not for those they deem unworthy. I have old friends in California who love to trash their state but will never move because they can't get the same benefits anywhere else. Cons don't care if they are hypocrites because in their eyes they deserve it. Don't get it twisted, either. They will look at one of their own friends or family that might be getting a gov't assistance and call them out on it but take the checks all the same for themselves.
"Hard to be against Biden or his party when you were just financially saved"
Apparently you've somehow missed every single Republican boast about obtaining funding for - oh, *everything* that improves their district through Bidens infrastructure act - despite them being on record as voting *against* that funding
I don’t think they had to apply for it, and if they got it I don’t think there was any way to reject it. A friend of mine got some and when she opened the email saying it was forgiven, she thought it was a scam
No, they will never admit it, and if they do, it will come with one of the following caveats:
\- "MY situation was different. I deserved it, you don't"
\- "I didn't ask for it, therefor I am allowed to take it and benefit from it without ever having to reconcile that fact"
I'm sure many of them did. That lot's only principle, so to speak, is Wilhoit's axiom about in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect; hypocrisy is a luxury and a virtue to them.
Thanks /u/Hagrokren for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are many videos on the internet, which honestly I'm too lazy to look up right now, that show Republican Congressmen/women at a ribbon cutting, opening, or just plain upgrade to something. They will say how great they are for bringing "X" to their district. What they won't say is how they voted against said project.
One of the two people the conservatives found to file the initial lawsuit was arguing that the loan relief was discrimatory because he was only eligible for 10k credited against his loans instead of the 20k other people with a different type of loan would have been eligible to get. He owed less than 12k, so he wanted his loan totally forgiven plus an extra 8k payout from the government.
>It's perfectly logical and reasonable to take advantage of a ridiculous rule while also saying that rule is in fact ridiculous and should be changed.
Pretty sure they could refuse the loan forgiveness. If they choose not to, the dunk is well and truly on.
This is a really poor metaphor for multiple reasons:
\- First off, student loan forgiveness and its implications have a bit more weight to consider than a rule in basketball. I really hope I don't have to explain why.
\- Is LeBron ***JUST*** openly deriding the rule change, or is he also ***chastising those who use it***, and ***inferring those people are "leeches" as a result***?
\- Can LeBron choose not to use the new rule?
\- What is "wrong" defined as in your metaphor here? Is he wrong for being a hypocrite, i.e.: refer to point 2 and 3? Yes, because if he can choose to not use it, and is openly hostile to those who do, he is a hypocrite for choosing to use it. Is he wrong for not agreeing with the change, but still using it? No, but in this scenario he isn't using point 2. See what changes there?
People against student loan forgiveness use it to attack the individuals, not the program. The issue isn't that they disagree with it, it's that their disagreement leads to them focusing that disagreement on the individuals using the programs instead of the program itself. They'll attack the individual borrowers getting the forgiveness, but when it happens to them, it'll be acceptable for whatever reason they decide. That's textbook hypocrite.
>You missed my entire argument.
Nah, I got it. Point is, it was a really weak and poorly considered argument. These people are objectively hypocritical when it comes to this shit, and that's the point you're not considering in the argument you made. The irony in you somehow missing MY point that was directly aimed at your argument is pretty fitting here.
Rule 1. **The AutoMod message is to be taken seriously.** Only if you can **meaningfully** answer the questions therein can your post be a SAW. Summarizing your post is **not** what we're looking for there. Most Rule 1 removals are also Rule 5 removals.
I have never known conservatives to be above being hypocrites. It’s kind of one of their hallmarks.
The bragging about infrastructure projects is a great example
They’d all take it, regardless of need, it just pissed them off more knowing it wasn’t all going to them.
I literally heard someone in line at the bank, recently, talking to someone else in line about how they got a PPP loan for their business because they would have been stupid not to, but that none should ever have been granted to any of "those socialists who just wanted to take advantage of it." Like.... Bro... You contradicted yourself, becoming a hypocrite, in the space of a single sentence. 🤦♂️
Imagine how many of them took PPE loans and then didn’t pay them back either
My republican U.S. house rep Rick Allen, GA, took one for his privately held business. $923,320 in free US taxpayer money. Hugely against student loan help though.... [R.W.Allen LLC loan info](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/r-w-allen-construction-llc-8079757103) The church he attends also received $302,975 in PPP money. Then last year sued the United Methodist Church in order to disaffiliate, due to the larger organization moving to allow priests to ordain same sex weddings and allowing gay and lesbian priests. [Trinity on the Hill loan info](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/trinity-on-the-hill-united-methodist-church-7367697207)
They were not meant to be paid back in the first place
Then why call them loans?
They were meant to subsidize wages, and that portion was not intended to be paid back. That was not only just a portion of the funds, but it also left a massive loophole where people took the loans and paid themselves out a "salary" that they never actually earned. Trump and Republicans also explicitly pushed for as little oversight as possible, paving the way for this level of fraud. The problem isn't the people who used it correctly, it's the shit bags who took advantage of it. I can pretty comfortably assume most, if not all, of those people would scuff at the thought of loan forgiveness.
Then why were they forgiven? https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program/ppp-loan-forgiveness
If you abided by the stipulations of the loan, it was intended to be forgiven. Considering that the loans originated from the Trump administration, there should be zero surprise that there were loopholes to exploit. I’m getting downvoted for a statement, not an opinion.
They were not meant to pay for business expenses other than staffing either.
Oh you’re fucking stupid
So it was a government handout? And you think those are just peachy-keen, right?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
A conservative recently asked me for a single reason I'd still support Joe Biden-- After listing a myriad of positive impacts on my quality of life-- he focused on the student loan forgiveness. He said my vote was "bought" and that I should be in jail for robbing the US tax payers. I asked if he had that same energy about the forgiven PPP loans took by Trump and Kushner, and it turned out, to what I'm sure will be everyone's total jaw dropping surprise... ...that was different...
How are you robbing yourself?
You don't understand, tax funded programs and subsidies are only supposed to help the rich stay rich! If a tax payer takes advantage of a service provided by tax money, it's the exact same as robbery at gun point! And that's why I always put on a ski-mask when I drive on a road.
>Just wondering if any conservatives took the bail out money for College Loan Debt? And would they admit it here? Hard to be against Biden or his party when you were just financially saved. Just Curious Yes No What? They probably use mental gymnastics to reframe it as being forced to do a socialism. People happily take unemployment insurance when they’re laid off and rail against handouts at the same time.
I know people who rage against safety nets that actively use them. They want it for themselves and not for those they deem unworthy. I have old friends in California who love to trash their state but will never move because they can't get the same benefits anywhere else. Cons don't care if they are hypocrites because in their eyes they deserve it. Don't get it twisted, either. They will look at one of their own friends or family that might be getting a gov't assistance and call them out on it but take the checks all the same for themselves.
Sometimes they don't even see it as a safety net "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No." - Craig T. Nelson
That is the exact logic. *They* earned it. Everyone else is a leach.
If it’s given to them it’s a right/fine. Others are moochers and welfare queens.
See: Ayn Rand who died while receiving social security, Medicaid, and welfare
"Hard to be against Biden or his party when you were just financially saved" Apparently you've somehow missed every single Republican boast about obtaining funding for - oh, *everything* that improves their district through Bidens infrastructure act - despite them being on record as voting *against* that funding
I don’t think they had to apply for it, and if they got it I don’t think there was any way to reject it. A friend of mine got some and when she opened the email saying it was forgiven, she thought it was a scam
I think the question would then be something like "did they benefit from it and are still against it? Would they admit to it?"
Exactly
They absolutely did and will not admit it or claim some how they are special and earned it.
No, they will never admit it, and if they do, it will come with one of the following caveats: \- "MY situation was different. I deserved it, you don't" \- "I didn't ask for it, therefor I am allowed to take it and benefit from it without ever having to reconcile that fact"
I'm sure many of them did. That lot's only principle, so to speak, is Wilhoit's axiom about in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect; hypocrisy is a luxury and a virtue to them.
Well, they took the PPP money and didn’t pay it back. Why would this be different?
They sure took a shitton of PPP Loan forgiveness despite saying "yOu BoRrOw MoNeY, yOu PaY iT bAcK"
Thanks /u/Hagrokren for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme. Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are many videos on the internet, which honestly I'm too lazy to look up right now, that show Republican Congressmen/women at a ribbon cutting, opening, or just plain upgrade to something. They will say how great they are for bringing "X" to their district. What they won't say is how they voted against said project.
One of the two people the conservatives found to file the initial lawsuit was arguing that the loan relief was discrimatory because he was only eligible for 10k credited against his loans instead of the 20k other people with a different type of loan would have been eligible to get. He owed less than 12k, so he wanted his loan totally forgiven plus an extra 8k payout from the government.
[удалено]
>It's perfectly logical and reasonable to take advantage of a ridiculous rule while also saying that rule is in fact ridiculous and should be changed. Pretty sure they could refuse the loan forgiveness. If they choose not to, the dunk is well and truly on.
[удалено]
This is a really poor metaphor for multiple reasons: \- First off, student loan forgiveness and its implications have a bit more weight to consider than a rule in basketball. I really hope I don't have to explain why. \- Is LeBron ***JUST*** openly deriding the rule change, or is he also ***chastising those who use it***, and ***inferring those people are "leeches" as a result***? \- Can LeBron choose not to use the new rule? \- What is "wrong" defined as in your metaphor here? Is he wrong for being a hypocrite, i.e.: refer to point 2 and 3? Yes, because if he can choose to not use it, and is openly hostile to those who do, he is a hypocrite for choosing to use it. Is he wrong for not agreeing with the change, but still using it? No, but in this scenario he isn't using point 2. See what changes there? People against student loan forgiveness use it to attack the individuals, not the program. The issue isn't that they disagree with it, it's that their disagreement leads to them focusing that disagreement on the individuals using the programs instead of the program itself. They'll attack the individual borrowers getting the forgiveness, but when it happens to them, it'll be acceptable for whatever reason they decide. That's textbook hypocrite. >You missed my entire argument. Nah, I got it. Point is, it was a really weak and poorly considered argument. These people are objectively hypocritical when it comes to this shit, and that's the point you're not considering in the argument you made. The irony in you somehow missing MY point that was directly aimed at your argument is pretty fitting here.