Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

And now we have partly recognized how stupid the idea of "not being responsible enough to vote" means in a Democracy. In a true-to-form Democracy economic standing cannot have influence in the vote. If policy decisions are made that influence your life, whether you are homeless or not you must be able to vote in a genuine Democracy. Not only to vote but to make an informed vote so that the Democracy, like it does in Germany, provides money to small platforms who get 5% of the vote or more.

Not being responsible enough to vote has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with the ability to intelligently discern the issues. Children, mental incompetents, and ignorance should be a requirement to vote. Democrats use mental incompetents to bolster their election on a daily basis. As a Democrat I find that quite obvious, and I help it along.

 

[gnarlylove]

Homeless does not equal mentally ill. And I clearly stated in a genuine Democracy we must be able to make an informed vote as well as vote. Most people vote on personal style and in the 2004 election, only 10% or 11% voted based on issues. There's a reason for that: our Democracy and journalistic standards are a sham. While we are the free-est press, we also have the most obedient press. And I can tell you've never wandered far from the American narrative.

 

[gnarlylove]

Wow, are you serious? After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?

His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.

And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor. Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.

For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.

If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.

I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.

No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.

Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.

All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.

No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc. Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?

Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).

I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.

I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.

I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.

Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.

You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.

I think we're done here. I had you pegged wrong. There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them. Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms. You're right, this isn't worth my time.

I've consistently requested one idea one post so we don't run into this problem. I have not called you names, not conservative, not anything but it happens to fit your narrative so that you feel justified. I'm glad you can conclude with sleight of hand that I'm the joker. It's always befitting to think oneself so obviously right there should be no question and it's a waste of time to defend ideas of property and free competition when there obviously given.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.

No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.

Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.

All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.

No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc. Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?

Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).

I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.

I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.

I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.

Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.

You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.

I think we're done here. I had you pegged wrong. There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them. Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms. You're right, this isn't worth my time.

I've consistently requested one idea one post so we don't run into this problem. I have not called you names, not conservative, not anything but it happens to fit your narrative so that you feel justified. I'm glad you can conclude with sleight of hand that I'm the joker. It's always befitting to think oneself so obviously right there should be no question and it's a waste of time to defend ideas of property and free competition when there obviously given.

Are you serious? I didn't use Marxist as a name calling mechanism, just a label that I thought fit. If you took it as an insult, that's on you.

You didn't engage in actual name calling, but do you realize that not once in this entire conversation did you ever adress the reasoning of my argument? All you did was ignore the reasoning and make assumptions about what I have and haven't read, whether or not I've been poor, and, my favorite, you've assumed that I'm not arguing based on my reasoning, I'm arguing based on a hatred for your point of view and a desire to be contrarian.

That's basically the same thing as name calling. It's a conscious decision to ignore my stated logic (and therefore hide from the argument) and in stead attack the messenger (me and my motives). There's been no sleight of hand. I've pointed out, via examples and quotes, in your words and mine, my reasoning for EVERY SINGLE THING I'VE SAID.

You have provided similar back up for exactly -0- of your claims, and yet you continue to imply that it's me who was using rhetorical devices to obfuscate. Hypocrite much?

Get fucked.

I also offered to cut this down to 1 argument per post, if you felt like stopping with the bullshit accusations and sticking to the part of my last debate post that actually debated the ponit. In stead, you doubled down on your accusations and then requested that I accept them, abandon the single point I had before, and address a new point that completely strays from the conversation we -were- having.

Sorry, but all you do is drag your feet and hide from arguments. You're not here to debate, you're here to feel more secure about your intellect. It's pretty fuckin sad.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.

I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique. I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?

1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).

2. Winners accumulate capital.

3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).

4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.

5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.

I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique. I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?

1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).

2. Winners accumulate capital.

3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).

4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.

5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

You did hit a nerve.

Every time I offer up an argument, you ignore the reasoning behind it and in stead try to attack my opinion by making inferences about what I must or must not know or must or must not have experienced or how I must be feeling to make such an argument. If my arguments are based on emotion and lack of experience, why is it that you can't actually offer up any logic against them?

This shit that you just quoted was nothing you said to me. Everything you've responded to -me- with has been obviously designed to opt out of responding to what I've actually said. I'm not sure if you do it on purpose or if it's an involuntary defense mechanism, but yes, it does get on my nerves. Forgive me if I'm not awed by your ability to deduce that I find you annoying.

 

[srlip]

so what;'s an "amount of time, hmm? capitalism of a GREAT nature, existed here for 50+ years, prior to the advent of the Fed reserve and personal income tax. if you'd care to learn the truth about that, search youtube for yaron brook

 

[dnsmith35]

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.

1. You failed to address the argument. What premise do you disagree with? You cannot disagree with 6 because it deductively follows from the previous 5. So which do you disagree with? Or do you not understand how logic works?

I addressed what I wished to address, your comment that Capitalism is an impossibility. And yes, I fully understand logic.

2. Saying "its the best we got" means you don't know of any better system. The fact that you don't know of any better system mean there is no better system? So you have all the knowledge to conclude no other system is better? Turns out there are 200+ countries with different economic arrangements than America and America has thee worst poverty, homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction and violent society among ALL of the developed nations. You're telling me that's the best?

Because I am a humanist, I don't just consider the conditions of individuals, I consider them no matter where they live...a western industrial country or poor 3rd world countries all over the world. There is capitalism with various controls by government to no control by government.(Laissez faire) I see no reason to try to describe to closed minds those various levels of control. We have more of the social evils in the US because we do not have as many social programs as other capitalist economic systems. Yet, we cannot compete with India or Pakistan or Bangladesh with poverty driven difficulty.

You have clearly never spent one second thinking critically about this and have spent your whole time being a cheerleader for an idea you refuse to think critically about. If you cannot examine an idea than it isn't worth much. Ideas are either valid or not. They are to be weighed appropriately and determined to be valid or not. If you cannot look at capitalism with a critical eye, than naturally you will support it so long as you shut your brain down when criticism arises. What a smooth tactic! Too bad it's infantile.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. When I studied for my MBA, economics was my primary concentration. I have spent my life thinking about these issues, probably to the tune of forgetting more than you have ever learned.

3. The fact that we call our system capitalism does not mean it resembles capitalism just like the USSR called itself communist but did not resemble communism. Just because the American propaganda system calls it X does not mean it is X. But since you don't want to think about capitalism in a critical manner you would never know that since you are among the gullible millions who cheerlead something they don't understand.

The fact that Russia has started moving toward capitalism does not make their capitalist system equal to the US, or Canada. Neither does it mean that the capitalist system of the US and Canada is not exactly the same. As I said earlier, capitalism can run the gamut between laissez-faire. Our country is capitalist by virtue of who the primary owners of job creating companies, not because someone calls it one thing or another.

4. State socialism is not socialism. All developed nations, including the US are state socialist nations. They provide welfare to their citizens. This is central to state socialism. Anyone who denies that simply lacks education on what socialism and capitalism is. We do not have free markets except in 1 or 2 markets.

ROTFLMAO! Social programs does not Socialism make. It is obvious you don't understand what Socialism is. The primary component of Socialism is government ownership of most industries or lock down tight control, not just regulation. Welfare to citizens is also not Socialism. It is a social program funded by the prosperity of capitalism. Your understanding of economics systems of capitalism and socialism reflects you are economics challenged. Communism is a different animal, but socialism and communism have been tried and failed with the most onerous situation is, BOTH REQUIRE AN AUTHORITATIVE GOVERNMENT TO HOLD THE PEOPLE DOWN.

The question is does America re-distribute welfare to the low income or to the super rich? If you've paid attention at all to politics, you'll know it turns out America gives outrageous deals to the super rich through monumental tax breaks and subsidies (Verizon received close to a billion at tax time thereby having an effective tax rate of negative 3%--what worker can do that? None).

Business thrives better in a low tax condition. Basically corporate taxation should be eliminated. Taxes should be collected from those who earn money from business. Taxing business tends to be double taxation. I do believe we need to tax the rich more, but high or low taxes on business or the rich does not define socialism.

So just because you've been brainwashed into thinking capitalism is equivalent to God does not mean it is so.

You sure do like to put your words into my mouth. I have said or implied nothing like that.

And until you decide to ask questions about capitalism, you'll just be another drone and cheerleader that has no value. Societys collapse because people don't ask questions. Maybe you are right about it being the best system but before that is to be determined we need to actually think about it instead of shouting from on high "Capitalism is God's Gift to Humanity!"

I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."

I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.

When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.

 

[dnsmith35]

wiseGEEK

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed are different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs. Many people consider communism to be a "higher" or more extreme form of socialism.

As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of resources is centralized to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Under communism, all people are considered equal and are provided for equally, regardless of their contributions to the economy or to society. This is different from socialism, but both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent many of the ill effects that are sometimes associated with capitalism, such as economic inequality.

Wikipedia

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3] The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the Communist states in the Eastern bloc and the most developed capitalist states of the Western world.[4]

Communism was first developed into a scientific theory by German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx,[5] and the collective understanding of this scientific approach is today commonly referred to as Marxism. In the Marxist understanding, communism is the endpoint of human social evolution which will inevitably come into fruition through economic and social advances in socialism. Socialism, being the new order established after the demise of capitalism, is herein characterized by the working class having state power and undertaking the process of abolishing capitalist property and economic relations and establishing social (i.e. public, collective) ownership and management of society's political, economic, and cultural institutions. In accordance with the socialized processes of production, appropriation also becomes socialized as goods and services become consumed on a social basis with free access for the individual. Communism becomes fully realized when the distinction between classes is no longer possible and therefore the state, which has been used as an instrument of class dictatorship, no longer exists.[6][7] In the communist economy, production and consumption are fully socialized, and the processes for which are advanced into maximized automation, efficiency, and recycling. This results in the end of individual money calculation, hence relationships between individuals being based on free association and free access to all goods and services according to need.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

A socialist economic system is based on the organisational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[8] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[9][10] On distribution of output there has been two proposals, one which is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution and another on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of debate within the broader socialist calculation debate.

 

[gnarlylove]

I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."

I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.

When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.

I know that my ignorance knows no bounds, that I have infinite ignorance. This can only make sense if the reference is to what "you know". But why assume your knowledge is the ultimate reference point for this discussion? Isn't that plainly absurd? What if I choose to do the same, merely admiring your standard of "you don't know what I know and so you must be endlessly ignorant." How could conversation proceed?

Most human knowledge is largely subjective and thus making your knowledge the only valid knowledge is cheap forfeiture. Despite cross-cultural diversity, each person is consciously or unconsciously filtering the world to fit their narrative. So while 16 years abroad is great it clearly allowed you to maintain the view that capitalism is the best we've got although you know any developed country you lived in did not have and will never have capitalism in its real meaning, period. But it's important for business schools to inculcate the ideas behind capitalism, that people only have the rights they gain on the labor market, that it's every person rationally choosing to maximize their life which really means if you want to do well in business you need to be more or less rational (e.g. cost/benefit) excluding from your criteria things like love, compassion etc. While you don't do that, from what I've read you instinctively argue for it likely because it's been drilled into you by your professors.

And if you really spent time in academic halls like I did, where is your academic decorum, your hearty critique as opposed to sloganized reply (i.e. your post about "capitalism's best we got")? I apologize for being rough with my intial replies but I only use the energy found in the post I'm responding to. Perhaps I took too much liberty and criticized you for being a cheerleader. Clearly I was wrong but if we revisited your reply i think it would be clear you were not interested in giving a nuanced response. Maybe time constraints prevented you.

Either way, I recant and if you want to have an academic conversation, let's. But you need to allow my ideas to exist and refrain from mindless assertions like "your ignorance knows no bounds" which basically precludes any dissent. Those types of blanket statements have no utility in a meaningful, rational, fruitful discussion. Moreover, I don't think your latter post is helpful. Maybe it was for you but a wikipedia analysis is sparsely an adequate account of any idea. It offers very broad strokes but nothing more. I've studied these ideas in a formal setting for 4 years and have continued my subjective and objective analysis otherwise I wouldn't be claiming a coherent critique of capitalism, state socialism and communism.

Just a word about your MBA: no doubt it is helpful for learning current business technique. However, Business Schools are not intended to offer a substantial critique of prevailing economic systems for it is how to operate within them and therefore critiques of pre-suppositions taught in an MBA are anti-thetical to the whole idea of Business School. I spent a fair amount of time in the Economics and Business buildings. I knew what it produced. And that's why many friends said they wanted to minor in philosophy so they could be challenged in other ways not offered in the business program.

 

[Andylusion]

"Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.

I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique. I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?

1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).

2. Winners accumulate capital.

3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).

4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.

5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

Gnarly.... Yes you post things in such a way as to incite hatred of you. I don't know why you can't see this, given that when other people do to you, what you do to others, you hate it as well.

This isn't a complicated concept. You did the same thing to Not2BSubjugated, that you did to me, and shockingly got the same response.

Remember this post?

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

True and irrelevant. Parents pass on to their kids, work ethic, moral values, and of course genetic disposition to do various work.

Alex Spanos, whose father was a Greek immigrant, wrote a book "Sharing the Wealth", in it he talks about how his father taught all of his kids to work harder than anyone else. They were driven to be successful in whatever they do. One ended up a doctor. The other a lawyer, and Alex himself became a multi-millionaire business owner.

And of course their kids were taught the same basic values, and most of them are massively successful.

Equally, if you live off welfare all your life, and do as little as you possibly can, and your kids learn from you, guess how they'll turn out? Pretty much the same, unless society forces them off the tax payers breasts, and makes them earn a living.

If that wasn’t enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults.

It's always interesting how a report can come out, and people on the left focus exclusively on one aspect, and ignore everything else. They put on their ideological blinders, and only see what fits with their socialist narrative.

http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf

Drop down to page 37. You'll find this table: Value of Wealth Transfer Received as a percent of Net Worth.

Now to recap, the leftist theory is that the reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they inherited $2.7 Million from their parents, which is 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults get in inheritance, and because they have this $2.7 Million, they then become successful.

To which my answer is...... bull sh!t.

This Table from the survey shows that the inheritance is only 12% of the total net worth of these people.

In other words.... There is a wealthy guy who has a net worth of $22.5 Million that he EARNED. He then get's an inheritance from his recently dead parents, of a mere $2.7 Million.

The left then ignores the fact he earned the $22.5 Million, point screaming at the $2.7 Million, and mindlessly claim the only reason he was successful was because of the tiny 12% of his net worth that came from the inheritance.

This.... is stupidity.

Also interestingly, the percentage of inherited money to net worth, was oddly higher during the Utopian years of Clinton.

But more importantly, the lower class of people get far more of their net worth from inheritance, than the upper. But of course the left has no problem with that.

The real reason that the sheer amount of inherited money is larger at the top, is for the same reason as I mentioned above. Typically, successful people are successful because their parents passed on ethics, morals, and disposition. Which of course typically means your parents are successful too, and thus have money to pass on.

The welfare queen who has nothing, spawns kids who have nothing. When the welfare mommy dies, she normally has nothing to pass on either.

Remember that? I responded to you, on the subject, with evidence from the link you provided. I made a logical, and intelligent response to you, treating you like an adult. What was your response?

True and irrelevant.

This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant? It isn't irrelevant for me, many of my friends, my community, and 58% of Americans who will experience poverty for a year at least.

Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant.

You deleted 90% of my post, kept one line out of context, and made up that it was about me saying that people were irrelevant. You responded illogically, maliciously and deceptive, did not respond on topic, and all while acting like a child.

And then when we respond to you like the pathetic lying child that you are, then you can't handle it, and start complaining about being polite? Or better when we do exactly what you did, back to you, you are getting bitter and saying "oh well I must have hit a nerve".

Well yeah dude... your posts are annoyingly stupid, ignorant, and a waste of time. That does in fact get on peoples nerves. I've warned other posters about you, and your conduct for this very reason.

Look, no one is going to waste their time debating the topic with you, when you do this crap. Why would anyone spend the time to make a thoughtful response, when they know you are going to delete 90%, complete fabricate something they didn't say, and then attack them over the straw-man argument you made up?

In fact the *ONLY* reason I have put in this much effort for this post, is that I can't figure out if you are intentionally malicious, or if you are just Forest Gump ignorant, and have no idea how badly you rub people the wrong way. I can give ignorant people the benefit of the doubt, and try and work with them. If I knew you were intentionally this idiotic, I'd have you on my ignore list already.

 

[Publius1787]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!



And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight.

 

[georgephillip]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

 

[bripat9643]

"Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.

I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique. I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?

1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).

2. Winners accumulate capital.

3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).

4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.

5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

You did hit a nerve.

Every time I offer up an argument, you ignore the reasoning behind it and in stead try to attack my opinion by making inferences about what I must or must not know or must or must not have experienced or how I must be feeling to make such an argument. If my arguments are based on emotion and lack of experience, why is it that you can't actually offer up any logic against them?

This shit that you just quoted was nothing you said to me. Everything you've responded to -me- with has been obviously designed to opt out of responding to what I've actually said. I'm not sure if you do it on purpose or if it's an involuntary defense mechanism, but yes, it does get on my nerves. Forgive me if I'm not awed by your ability to deduce that I find you annoying.

You're starting to understand Gnarluv's technique. He refuses to be pinned down on anything he says. If you ask him to explain himself, he changes the subject. If you bring him back to the subject, he starts getting emotional.

That's why I seldom bother trying to debate him. He's obviously not interested in whether his ideas are actually true. He just like to hear himself prattle.

 

[gnarlylove]

I wonder how many names I've been called....and yet you folks have the audacity to reverse the problem on me as if I refuse to listen to you and call you names! HA! What liars!

I don't engage in name-calling except when I'm also being an idiot. And somehow I am the one who doesn't listen, the one who gets emotional. Are you serious? Maybe deep down you know your ideas have never been personally and internally questioned and so if someone else like myself begins to question them you get defensive. I understand. I become the bad guy who is trying to destroy your accurate little world.

You seem to believe I think that I'm infallible. What fucking stupidity! I have admitted I am wrong. I am mostly wrong about everything. But to assume you have the accurate picture of the world is ultra delusional. When I speak on something, I'm offering a position I think is accurate. You have the ability to invalidate those claims and I welcome them.

Real Free Markets are utter hogwash. My 6 point argument deduces such. I've yet to hear invalidation on this, the cornerstone of most disagreement.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I wonder how many names I've been called....and yet you folks have the audacity to reverse the problem on me as if I refuse to listen to you and call you names! HA! What liars!

I don't engage in name-calling except when I'm also being an idiot. And somehow I am the one who doesn't listen, the one who gets emotional. Are you serious? Maybe deep down you know your ideas have never been personally and internally questioned and so if someone else like myself begins to question them you get defensive. I understand. I become the bad guy who is trying to destroy your accurate little world.

You seem to believe I think that I'm infallible. What fucking stupidity! I have admitted I am wrong. I am mostly wrong about everything. But to assume you have the accurate picture of the world is ultra delusional. When I speak on something, I'm offering a position I think is accurate. You have the ability to invalidate those claims and I welcome them.

Real Free Markets are utter hogwash. My 6 point argument deduces such. I've yet to hear invalidation on this, the cornerstone of most disagreement.

You do refuse to listen and call people names.

Your initial response to DN Smith, aside from ALL THE SHIT I POINTED OUT ABOUT YOUR DODGES OF MY ARGUMENTS, proves as much.

You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post was an explanation that said the opposite.

You don't actually use logic to refute peoples' arguments. It might not always be "name calling" but rather than refute the reasoning, you tell them there's some underlying reason why they're unqualified to say what they said.

You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time. It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.

It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.

 

[dnsmith35]

......

I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."

I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.

When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.

I know that my ignorance knows no bounds, that I have infinite ignorance. This can only make sense if the reference is to what "you know". But why assume your knowledge is the ultimate reference point for this discussion? Isn't that plainly absurd? What if I choose to do the same, merely admiring your standard of "you don't know what I know and so you must be endlessly ignorant." How could conversation proceed?

I have an MBA with a major study in economics. Because economics is based on personal behavior, I went on to get an Ed.S in Psychology.

Most human knowledge is largely subjective and thus making your knowledge the only valid knowledge is cheap forfeiture. Despite cross-cultural diversity, each person is consciously or unconsciously filtering the world to fit their narrative. So while 16 years abroad is great it clearly allowed you to maintain the view that capitalism is the best we've got although you know any developed country you lived in did not have and will never have capitalism in its real meaning, period.

That is not correct. Capitalism is reasonably defined as an economic system in which the principle business decisions about what to create, manufacture, or service functions is made by Private citizens. Obviously capitalism runs the gamut from laissez faire to different levels of regulation by the government and some do and some don't have social programs to some degree.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market​

But it's important for business schools to inculcate the ideas behind capitalism, that people only have the rights they gain on the labor market, that it's every person rationally choosing to maximize their life which really means if you want to do well in business you need to be more or less rational (e.g. cost/benefit) excluding from your criteria things like love, compassion etc. While you don't do that, from what I've read you instinctively argue for it likely because it's been drilled into you by your professors.

Partly by study, and partly through experience, as we are all a sum total of our education and experience, but being in the Consultation business with business clients of varying size, and having followed by MBA with a Psychology EdS, I do not exclude things like love, compassion, empathy in my consultations with my clients. One of the most daunting efforts in a business was to convince them to apply policies which keep their employees happy, which will ultimately keep skilled employees to remain with the business. That last comment is more based on personal experience from before I did my graduate work. I spent 27 years in the military. It is an easily observed fact that when we had benevolent commanders and staff we had a much larger % of reenlistments. My basic practice as an Officer was to ask instead of order, listen instead of preach, and befriend rather than be obnoxious.

And if you really spent time in academic halls like I did, where is your academic decorum, your hearty critique as opposed to sloganized reply (i.e. your post about "capitalism's best we got")? I apologize for being rough with my intial replies but I only use the energy found in the post I'm responding to. Perhaps I took too much liberty and criticized you for being a cheerleader. Clearly I was wrong but if we revisited your reply i think it would be clear you were not interested in giving a nuanced response. Maybe time constraints prevented you.

It is my firm belief that any form of Capitalism, except for pure Laissez-Faire, and I am not sure about that, is better than any form of true socialism which as defined is production and distribution either owned of tightly controlled by government. I also know of no true socialist/communist experiment which has made the people of any current as prosperous as any form of Capitalism. It is Capitalism which makes a country prosperous enough to create and fund social programs/safety-nets .

Either way, I recant and if you want to have an academic conversation, let's. But you need to allow my ideas to exist and refrain from mindless assertions like "your ignorance knows no bounds" which basically precludes any dissent. Those types of blanket statements have no utility in a meaningful, rational, fruitful discussion. Moreover, I don't think your latter post is helpful. Maybe it was for you but a wikipedia analysis is sparsely an adequate account of any idea. It offers very broad strokes but nothing more. I've studied these ideas in a formal setting for 4 years and have continued my subjective and objective analysis otherwise I wouldn't be claiming a coherent critique of capitalism, state socialism and communism.

I don't intend to get into a deep analytical discussion about economics or government no matter how much my academic or experiential understanding may be, simply because it is exhausting and I prefer off hand and personal knowledge intercourse.

Just a word about your MBA: no doubt it is helpful for learning current business technique. However, Business Schools are not intended to offer a substantial critique of prevailing economic systems for it is how to operate within them and therefore critiques of pre-suppositions taught in an MBA are anti-thetical to the whole idea of Business School. I spent a fair amount of time in the Economics and Business buildings. I knew what it produced. And that's why many friends said they wanted to minor in philosophy so they could be challenged in other ways not offered in the business program.

While earning my MBA I studied economics as a 2nd major. I thought I had said that. If not sorry about my omission. I am 78, making my first career the 27 years of military, almost completely in management. After retiring from the military, and understanding authoritative control, I did my graduate work and spent another 20 years (still do but only limited since) working for a consulting firm, then doing it freelance, about half and half until I retired from full time. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren have been far more rewarding than working full time, and since with extended age stamina and physical activity have made me slow down appreciably.

No matter what, I am very comfortable in my understanding of economics, human behavioral traits as well as business.

 

[dnsmith35]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight.

That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%

 

[gnarlylove]

You do refuse to listen and call people names.

I've openly stated multiple times I welcome invalidation of my logic. I guess when I say that, I don't mean what I say but rather have some sleight of hand meaning. To be safe, let's assume I'm wrong about everything I've ever said. I'm willing to stipulate this premise in order to advance discussion.

You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post was an explanation that said the opposite.

The bold statement must be a joke. DN Smith's entire post, found here was exactly the opposite of being sensitive to low income. While he lived in his version of poverty for 15 years+, once he decided to grow wings and fly out of poverty, he looks back in disgust with those who can't seem to do what he did i.e. "stop with the self-pity."

So yeah, his post was an explanation of "the opposite," the opposite of how you understood it. But, maintaining my stipulation, I am wrong about all of these comments. So instead of ask you to comment on them, I'd much rather prefer you comment on below:

You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time. It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.

It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.

So in conclusion, I agree with you. I have been wrong about everything and my entire tactic has been one of a greek sophist. Now that I also see this truth, putting aside rhetoric and ego, what practical results do we have? Essentially we have gained nothing. The only resulting gain for our discussion is
a) I have no reason to speak because all I have to say is deceit; or
b) you have been right about everything thus confirming your ego and allowing it to expand; or
c) prevents any measured compromise by subsuming and eliminating all my ideas which also allows for further ego expansion. I am removed from the marketplace of ideas and you are the king of the hill.

So in order to have a level-headed conversation of opposing view points I must disavow all my beliefs, or at least the relevant ones thereby removing any potential opposition. This is literally the 4th time I've come to this earnest arrangement.

Now that we can begin talking, what is there to talk about if I agree with you that I've been speaking pure sophism, heretical and fact-less lunacy? I guess the best we can come up with is my cheerleading of you. Now that is indeed rational, stipulating the aforementioned premise. But I must admit my academic training in general and Logic 340 in particular tells me that this is not how logic, validity etc. should function. But then again, we are not logic machines, we are human beings with emotional needs of validation. So cheerleading makes sense if, like 99% of Americans, you mostly care about yourself and are infatuated with the ego and your beliefs. I too have been guilty of this, and according to you, will always be unless I drop what I think and pick up your aligned and true ideas.

So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

I've openly stated multiple times I welcome invalidation of my logic. I guess when I say that, I don't mean what I say but rather have some sleight of hand meaning. To be safe, let's assume I'm wrong about everything I've ever said. I'm willing to stipulate this premise in order to advance discussion.

You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post was an explanation that said the opposite.

The bold statement must be a joke. DN Smith's entire post, found here was exactly the opposite of being sensitive to low income. While he lived in his version of poverty for 15 years+, once he decided to grow wings and fly out of poverty, he looks back in disgust with those who can't seem to do what he did i.e. "stop with the self-pity."[/quote]Not being responsible enough to vote has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with the ability to intelligently discern the issues. Children, mental incompetents, and ignorance should not be a requirement to vote. Democrats use mental incompetents to bolster their election on a daily basis. As a Democrat I find that quite obvious, and I help it along. If you believe anything I posted disparages or is insensitive to the poor, you misunderstood what I said.

So yeah, his post was an explanation of "the opposite," the opposite of how you understood it. But, maintaining my stipulation, I am wrong about all of these comments. So instead of ask you to comment on them, I'd much rather prefer you comment on below:

Actually he got a better understanding of what I said. I have lots of empathy and compassion for the poor, starting with the least wealthy (more poor) people in the world. Since I am concerned with the poor, I recognize that the poor in the US are a minority ratio of our population than most if not all countries of the 3rd world. A homeless man or woman, laying in the street and starving will get more sympathy that those few poor (comparatively) in the US and absolutely those who are RELATIVELY POOR, ie simply having less than most of the people, but not bone crunching poor like 500 million people in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.[/quote]

You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time. It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.

It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.

So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.

That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind.