Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm way to lazy to actually view those videos. So, I won't say anything, until I do watch them, which will probably never happen.
Where did Jaggerbot earn his pretend fortune?
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What are you, twelve?
Your "way too lazy" to view those videos....
But you are successful lawyer?
Well, you have the intellectual integrity of a lawyer. But you have the arguing ability of a 5 year old. You also seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trolling and spamming forums in a blatant attempt to bait and enrage people as well as spread disinformation. I have a hard time buying that you are a rich lawyer. Dude.
So where did Freddy Jagger-bot earn his pretend fortune.
A pretend fortune that he says is greater than the real fortune acquired by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which is believed to be over $100M?
Is he a pretend lawyer, making pretend money?
Is he a pretend investor?
Did he acquire his pretend fortune through a pretend trust fund?
Or did he win a pretend lotto?
A pretend fortune that he says is greater than the real fortune acquired by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which is believed to be over $100M?
Is he a pretend lawyer, making pretend money?
Is he a pretend investor?
Did he acquire his pretend fortune through a pretend trust fund?
Or did he win a pretend lotto?
I think the term you are looking for is "delusions of grandeur".
Maybe it's monopoly money...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The more you read of the Jagger-bot the more it seems like he is nothing more then a hack propagandist who doesn't really understand what he is talking about but can cut and paste and steal ideas that make him seem knowledgeable. He has yet to be able to repudiate anything. All he can do is repeat talking points and belittle others...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's a right wing nut job named Herman Cain who believes the Sixteenth Amendment, the Social Security System and Withholding Taxes are Socialism.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12825&keywords=socialism+social+security
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12825&keywords=socialism+social+security
Good lawyers know how to make a coherent and logical argument. They know that doing what Freddy "jagger-bot" is doing only hurts your credibility and would not engage in this kind of spamming...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
There is no coherent argument for the proposition that the Sixteenth Amendment, the Social Security System and Withholding Taxes are Socialism.
can you say "deflection"?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Nope. But, I can play the hell out of "Honky Tonk Women" on my Telecaster with an Open G Tuning.
Oh come on you guys.
Freddy Jagger-bot has been quite entertaining and witty of recent, especially compared to the old posts.
Some of his retorts have been quite pointed.
This country is not going back to 19th century capitalism and values like you seem to be pining for.
You ever wonder why he cannot seem to back them up when challenged?
Has he yet provided any verifiable facts that logically back up his claims?
These are opinions and "facts" are in the eye of the beholder.
Do you find these retorts illogical?
Quote:Originally Posted by fossten
You socialist elitists need to understand that America isn't supposed to be a country where people are 'taken care of' by the government.
You need to understand that the purpose of government is to promote the safety and happiness of the people
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
The government's job should be to manage our defense while ensuring that our liberty has as little abridgment as possible.
Almost every person in the nation disagrees with you
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
You socialist elites have ruined this country
Dude, socialism is what makes this such a great and powerful nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
If it weren't for the oppressive regulations and taxes imposed on us by the government, fewer people would work in factories. They could start and run their own businesses.
Don't blame the government for your failure to achieve financial success.
__________________
I think they're pretty sharp.
We have had some level of socialism in this country since the late
19th century and this has helped make the country great.
Who needs to continue to prove the obvious.
You can argue that we have too much socialism, but not against having some level of socialism.
Government regulations offer business opportunities for those willing to meet the challenge and provide the goods and services required.
Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Facts, by definition, are in no way "in the eye of the beholder"; they are not subjective. They are objective truths.
Short answer: those retorts are all illogical and/or lies of omission.Do you find these retorts illogical?
Quote:Originally Posted by fossten
You socialist elitists need to understand that America isn't supposed to be a country where people are 'taken care of' by the government.
You need to understand that the purpose of government is to promote the safety and happiness of the people
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
The government's job should be to manage our defense while ensuring that our liberty has as little abridgment as possible.
Almost every person in the nation disagrees with you
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
You socialist elites have ruined this country
Dude, socialism is what makes this such a great and powerful nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten
If it weren't for the oppressive regulations and taxes imposed on us by the government, fewer people would work in factories. They could start and run their own businesses.
Don't blame the government for your failure to achieve financial success.
Long answer: I find the quotes by fossten taken out of context, for the most part. The quotes by the jagger-bot are illogical non sequiturs, not factually backed up and/or aimed primarily at appealing to the emotions of the uncritical and agitating the critical.
How is it obvious? It is obvious that we have some level of socialism creeping into the system since the early 20th century. But it is hardly obvious that it has helped make this country great. It could just as easily be that out country is great DESPITE that socialism. You need to be able to prove one or the other to reasonably accept either as "obvious".
ALL you have to go on in support of the view that socialism helped make this country great is the assertions of someone who habitually distorts and lies and cannot defend his claims against criticism through anything more then demagoguery; the mere assertions of someone with no credibility. There are no facts that logically back up his claims. There is no logical argument presented. All you have are assertions and assertions alone do not prove anything.
Just because a claim appears witty or said with a very strong air of confidence does not make it true and does not make the person claiming it above criticism.
In fact, a very strong propaganda technique is aimed at deceiving people through telling a lie so "colossal" (and with a necessarily strong air of confidence) that it would be very hard to believe that someone, "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." That technique is called the Big Lie.
Considering the jagger-bot's pattern of dishonesty, you would be wise to double check and critically analyze any of his assertions.
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
-John Stuart Mill
-John Stuart Mill
Arguing that we don't have some level of socialism? No one is arguing that.
But it is a bald faced lie that this country was in any way founded with some degree of socialism built in, in some fashion. That really didn't start creeping in until around the early 20th century.
Or are you saying that one cannot argue that we shouldn't have some level of socialism in the system? If so, then what do you base that statement on?
And they do so by preventing and destroying more business options then they "create".
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Social Security is a great American Socialist/Progressive institution that makes the U. S. a much greater nation than it would be if our elderly citizens lived in dire poverty, which is apparently what the right wing nut jobs want.
I see your critiques of Freddy's points have been removed overnight but other than the last one they are just sharp differences of opinion.
Fred has said he is lazy I agree he doesn't back up his a lot of his opinions as studiously as you guys do.
But the country IS great with some socialism and this is the status quo.
I don't need to prove what is as you can't prove what may be.
You guys keep harping on how this country was founded on "Christian"
values. Helping one's fellow man is a main tennet of Christianity.
What you consider "creep" I consider growth and maturity.
The country has grown since it's founding.
I was saying there is no good argument for eliminating socialism entirely, the only argument is what is the appropriate level.
In my own case supplying products for government regulations drafted to help the disadvantaged has made me a wealthy man with a real not pretend fortune in the last 5 years
Fred has said he is lazy I agree he doesn't back up his a lot of his opinions as studiously as you guys do.
But the country IS great with some socialism and this is the status quo.
I don't need to prove what is as you can't prove what may be.
You guys keep harping on how this country was founded on "Christian"
values. Helping one's fellow man is a main tennet of Christianity.
What you consider "creep" I consider growth and maturity.
The country has grown since it's founding.
I was saying there is no good argument for eliminating socialism entirely, the only argument is what is the appropriate level.
This is an opinion.
In my own case supplying products for government regulations drafted to help the disadvantaged has made me a wealthy man with a real not pretend fortune in the last 5 years
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If you define "socialism" the way the right wing nutters use the word - to include virtually any sort of regulation of economic wrongs committed against the weak by the strong or government action to provide for the welfare of the people - then it could be reasonably argued that the founders did indeed found our great nation upon two of the basic tenets of socialism when they endowed the U. S. Government with broad general authority over the commerce and welfare of the nation.
Actually, to reasonably accept either view you need to be able to prove it. Otherwise you are arbitrarily picking one view to agree with based more on emotion then on critical thought.
And yes, I can prove that this country is great despite having some socialism. But I am not going to waste time doing so with the jagger-bot. It would be an exercise in futility to engage him like that.
That is an overly simplistic distortion...
I am sure you do
Not all growth is good growth.
No good argument? Or no argument you have heard and/or are willing to consider?
No, that is economic fact. The government CAN NOT create wealth. They can only do anything by taking wealth from somewhere else and using more inefficiently. There are numerous ways that this reduces "business opportunities".
Government cannot create wealth. Socialism cannot create wealth. the ONLY economic system that DOES create wealth is capitalism.
Also, more government spending means less private sector spending. More government regulation means less business opportunities. These are not opinions they are economic realities; objective truths. Don't write them off as mere "opinion" simply because they don't line up with your views and what you want to believe.
Let me repeat that Mill quote for you...
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
-John Stuart Mill
-John Stuart Mill
In my own case supplying products for government regulations drafted to help the disadvantaged has made me a wealthy man with a real not pretend fortune in the last 5 years
Your example is anecdotal at best.
Maybe you should look beyond your own little bubble and see how certain actions effect the economy as a whole; namely government actions. Just because you benefit does not mean that the economy as a whole does. The government does not contribute to the economy. All they do is leach from it and restrict it. That is something that cannot substantively be argued. They only question is weather or not the necessarily leaching and restriction offers a net benefit or a net drawback in the long run; where is that balance point.
Wrong again. The commerce clause is the most manipulated, redefined broadly (distorted) and abused clause in the Constitution. Any law student could tell you that.
It is absolutely shameful of you to opportunistically play off people's ignorance of the commerce clause like that.
The same goes for the general welfare clause...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If our government is supposed to embody Christian principles, and if it a Christian principle that we should provide for the poor, it necessarily follows that our government has a divine moral duty to provide for the poor.
Taking that distortion and running with it to further agitate I see...
Shag – you are wrong when you say the government cannot create wealth – it can.
The government provides for public schools (a socialist program). Because of the opportunities that schooling affords people they are able to go out and create wealth (make more money). Someone who has zero education will likely have very little opportunity to make much money. Someone who completes high school has a much greater opportunity to create wealth. Over a lifetime, imagine the difference in the amount of wealth created by a typical person who has never attended school vs a high school graduate.
The government also supports research. For instance it gives money to drug companies to create new solutions for health problems. When those drugs are created, they in turn, create a profit for the drug manufacturer. Government research in health care, computer technology, security, weapons development etc., have all created wealth building opportunities in the private sector.
The advancements in metallurgy and communications via contracts to defense contractors and NASA are immense. Those advancements, from stronger aluminum alloys to the internet have created vast amounts of wealth.
Without the government no roads are built. Without the intricate highway system in the United States, commerce and the creation of wealth comes to a complete standstill. The east coast wouldn’t be able to sell goods to middle America, the west coast wouldn’t be able to transport good to the south. The opportunity to sell goods to a larger consumer base via the publicly created highway system has created wealth.
Business can refuse goods to people who do not pay. But if a business provides a fighter jet it is impossible to force all the people who benefit from that fighter jet to pay. The same goes for roads, education and research (see above). Without the government paying for those activities, the people won’t be able to get those types of goods and services, and so we will start to slide and will actually to lose wealth.
Do police and fire departments along with the military provide no net benefits to society? Should the amount taxpayers pay for those types of services offset the gains those services provide dollar for dollar? And how to you place a value on the protection the police provide during a riot situation, or the protection the military provides? Without the government to provide those resources that money would not be spent. Private business isn't going to create a standing army to protect our shores, so taking money in the form of taxes and creating a safe homeland, protects wealth. The rioters loot and steal if no police department is there to stop them. And if you protect our wealth, you then create the opportunity to grown our wealth.
Only the government has the scope and resources to provide many types of public goods and services, and if the government doesn’t supply those society gets fewer of its needs met. No military protection, no fire departments, no infrastructure. This means taxing the people, but the benefits to society from the government provided goods and services can, and do, exceed the loss to society from taxes.
