SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Robert Reich | Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest

Robert Reich | Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest

(4:30) Robert Reich explains how corporate welfare works. Robert Reich YT channel

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (73 days ago)
Latest comment:

Excellent and well informed video.  

Great to hear from experts for once.

Original comment
Latest comment:

Excellent and well informed video.  

Great to hear from experts for once.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

“In the conservative mind, socialism means getting something for doing nothing.”  Although some conservatives may not understand we are already socialist, there are, in fact, people getting benefits for doing nothing.  Some of our social programs include Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, SNAP Food Stamps, Medicaid, free government cell phones, Obamacare, TANF, CHIP, SSI, Tax Credits for families with children, 13 years of free education and drastically reduced tuition and government subsidies for community colleges, and HUD housing/Section 8.  I’m sure there’s more but that’s a good start.  The only one where you actually get back money depending on how much you paid into it is Social Security.  The more money you made during your working years will determine how much money they pay you when you retire.  The rest are for everyone regardless of how much you paid and, in most cases, the benefits are better the lower your income is, or only for the poor.  For example, I don’t qualify for Obamacare subsidies because I earn too much money.

Regarding GM getting 500 million in federal contracts, that’s not socialism.  Many companies get federal contracts like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.  That’s not giving a hand-out, it’s to purchase products or services.  

Regarding 500 million in GM tax breaks, does someone have a reference link to this because all I can find it the universal corporate tax reduction given to all corporations.

“Some of this corporate welfare has gone into the pockets of GM executives.”  And some has gone to the other 173,000 employees.  Of course the CEO makes more than the other employees, that’s what the board of directors all agree the CEO is worth.

“The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trumps tax cuts” So did all the other corporations so…. What’s your point here?

“Banks that are too big to fail - courtesy of the 2008 bank bailout.”  You call it a bailout, I would call it a loan that banks did not want and were forced to pay usury interest rates on.  The government earned $15.3 billion in forced interest payments from those banks so it was a profit generating program.  The banks paid back that money so it also was not a hand-out.

About the estate tax, I agree it should be repealed completely.  Any money inherited has already been taxed and it is unfair to tax it again.  A lot of rich people have their wealth in real estate or stocks and it’s not fair to make someone sell assets in order to pay taxes.

Original comment

“In the conservative mind, socialism means getting something for doing nothing.”  Although some conservatives may not understand we are already socialist, there are, in fact, people getting benefits for doing nothing.  Some of our social programs include Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, SNAP Food Stamps, Medicaid, free government cell phones, Obamacare, TANF, CHIP, SSI, Tax Credits for families with children, 13 years of free education and drastically reduced tuition and government subsidies for community colleges, and HUD housing/Section 8.  I’m sure there’s more but that’s a good start.  The only one where you actually get back money depending on how much you paid into it is Social Security.  The more money you made during your working years will determine how much money they pay you when you retire.  The rest are for everyone regardless of how much you paid and, in most cases, the benefits are better the lower your income is, or only for the poor.  For example, I don’t qualify for Obamacare subsidies because I earn too much money.

Regarding GM getting 500 million in federal contracts, that’s not socialism.  Many companies get federal contracts like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.  That’s not giving a hand-out, it’s to purchase products or services.  

Regarding 500 million in GM tax breaks, does someone have a reference link to this because all I can find it the universal corporate tax reduction given to all corporations.

“Some of this corporate welfare has gone into the pockets of GM executives.”  And some has gone to the other 173,000 employees.  Of course the CEO makes more than the other employees, that’s what the board of directors all agree the CEO is worth.

“The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trumps tax cuts” So did all the other corporations so…. What’s your point here?

“Banks that are too big to fail - courtesy of the 2008 bank bailout.”  You call it a bailout, I would call it a loan that banks did not want and were forced to pay usury interest rates on.  The government earned $15.3 billion in forced interest payments from those banks so it was a profit generating program.  The banks paid back that money so it also was not a hand-out.

About the estate tax, I agree it should be repealed completely.  Any money inherited has already been taxed and it is unfair to tax it again.  A lot of rich people have their wealth in real estate or stocks and it’s not fair to make someone sell assets in order to pay taxes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

Estate tax or not, something will have to done to reduce inequality. In the long run I think business as usual will lead to major societal problems, affecting both rich and poor.

Original comment

Estate tax or not, something will have to done to reduce inequality. In the long run I think business as usual will lead to major societal problems, affecting both rich and poor.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

I am pro equal rights and equal opportunity but I am against regulated equal outcome. Someone who spent their time and money to further their education should make more money than a high school dropout.  That’s okay with me.

There is no problem with someone becoming rich like Jeff Bezos.  That was a very risky business venture he started and was losing money every year until recently.  Where was everyone in 1997 when Amazon had their IPO.  Anyone could have invested at that time and could also have become rich.  Now the Amazon business finally made him the richest person in the world and I don’t have a problem with that. Those that snoozed, lost.  Those that risked their money, won.

I do, however, have an issue with Amazon’s predatory monopoly practices where they will take top selling items and then create their own version of it, sell it below the cost of the original until that company goes out of business and then raise the price of their own product.   The Diapers dot com business that initially refused to sell to Amazon is a good example of what’s wrong with that practice.  Every company should have the ability to compete in the marketplace fairly.

Original comment

I am pro equal rights and equal opportunity but I am against regulated equal outcome. Someone who spent their time and money to further their education should make more money than a high school dropout.  That’s okay with me.

There is no problem with someone becoming rich like Jeff Bezos.  That was a very risky business venture he started and was losing money every year until recently.  Where was everyone in 1997 when Amazon had their IPO.  Anyone could have invested at that time and could also have become rich.  Now the Amazon business finally made him the richest person in the world and I don’t have a problem with that. Those that snoozed, lost.  Those that risked their money, won.

I do, however, have an issue with Amazon’s predatory monopoly practices where they will take top selling items and then create their own version of it, sell it below the cost of the original until that company goes out of business and then raise the price of their own product.   The Diapers dot com business that initially refused to sell to Amazon is a good example of what’s wrong with that practice.  Every company should have the ability to compete in the marketplace fairly.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

Equal opportunity is inhibited by inherited wealth. Jeff Bezos is a clever and hardworking man, and I am sure he deserves at least a portion of the money he has amassed. However, if your great-grandchildren have to earn a living while his great-grandchildren are all supported by trillion dollar trust funds, that's not equal opportunity. An estate tax can be helpful in that matter. (Historically, revolution is the standard solution, but that shouldn't be necessary in a modern society.)

Original comment

Equal opportunity is inhibited by inherited wealth. Jeff Bezos is a clever and hardworking man, and I am sure he deserves at least a portion of the money he has amassed. However, if your great-grandchildren have to earn a living while his great-grandchildren are all supported by trillion dollar trust funds, that's not equal opportunity. An estate tax can be helpful in that matter. (Historically, revolution is the standard solution, but that shouldn't be necessary in a modern society.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

So you feel the children and grandchildren of someone that worked hard and earned all the riches shouldn’t be able to benefit from that wealth?  Is that your position?

In my opinion, rich people want to earn a lot of money, not for themselves, but for their family.  You think Bezos could spend all his money during his lifetime?  I doubt it.  But his family is set for their life and it’s all due to the hard work, innovation, and risk of Jeff.  I have no problem with that because I feel it’s appropriate for all the things I have and wealth I’ve accumulated all my life to go to the people I designate in my will instead of going to the government when I die.

If I knew my wealth would go to the government after I die, I would rather burn the money or donate it to some 3rd world country than to let the government take my hard earned money and use it to fund the war machine.

Original comment

So you feel the children and grandchildren of someone that worked hard and earned all the riches shouldn’t be able to benefit from that wealth?  Is that your position?

In my opinion, rich people want to earn a lot of money, not for themselves, but for their family.  You think Bezos could spend all his money during his lifetime?  I doubt it.  But his family is set for their life and it’s all due to the hard work, innovation, and risk of Jeff.  I have no problem with that because I feel it’s appropriate for all the things I have and wealth I’ve accumulated all my life to go to the people I designate in my will instead of going to the government when I die.

If I knew my wealth would go to the government after I die, I would rather burn the money or donate it to some 3rd world country than to let the government take my hard earned money and use it to fund the war machine.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

My position is that there needs to be a mechanism in place to reduce inequality over time.

If Jeff Bezos puts all his 150 billions in an indexfund at 6% p.a. after inflation, it will turn into 150 trillions in 120 years. In another 120 years, it will have grown to 150 quadrillions. Twelve-fifteen generations down the road we are approaching the sextillion mark. You see the problem? Now, obviously this won't happen. Either the money will be given away voluntarily, the government will tax it or the people will take it by force. Take your pick.

Original comment

My position is that there needs to be a mechanism in place to reduce inequality over time.

If Jeff Bezos puts all his 150 billions in an indexfund at 6% p.a. after inflation, it will turn into 150 trillions in 120 years. In another 120 years, it will have grown to 150 quadrillions. Twelve-fifteen generations down the road we are approaching the sextillion mark. You see the problem? Now, obviously this won't happen. Either the money will be given away voluntarily, the government will tax it or the people will take it by force. Take your pick.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (76 days ago)

“My position is that there needs to be a mechanism in place to reduce inequality over time.”  Why?  Ever since there have been Kings, Queens, and Emperors, has there been inequality.  Inequality is a nice motivator.  If everyone received the same no matter what their effort, you would lessen innovation and hard work.

Imagine you’re on an island with just 20 people.  Everyone is contributing to building shacks, gathering firewood, and fishing. But there’s one person that sits around and does nothing all day.  That person is capable but is just lazy.  Should he be invited to participate in the catch of the day, share in the warmth of the fire, and be allowed to stay in the community hut?  Or, do you think the other 19 people would kick him out of the group and tell him to go fend for himself?  What would be the right thing to do?  What if that person did go out on his own and built a better hut and a built a contraption to catch more fish than everyone else.  Should he then be forced to share or could he keep and eat what he caught?

“If Jeff Bezos puts all his 150 billions in an indexfund at 6%” Why don’t you consider what that money could do if it was spent to rid the world of disease or hunger instead.  How much cash do you think Bezos has out of his billions of net worth?  Most of his net worth is in Amazon stock and the value of that stock is determined by people who want to buy or sell it.  It could tank at any time and he could take a big hit on his unrealized gains. 

If you want to tax people who own stock, what value do you tax it at?  Let’s say, for example, I bought a stock for $100 and it’s now on the market for $1000.  Noting that the stock is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it.  How much of my wealth would be taxed: 100 or 1000?  Would the determination of that value be on December 31st every year?  What if the situation was reversed such as I bought the stock for $1000 and it’s now worth $100?  What if I own stocks from a foreign country instead?  As you can see, that becomes really complicated.  Today, if I bought the stock at $100 and it grows to $1000, I pay nothing because I have earned nothing.  If I sell the stock for $1000, then I have a realized capital gain of $900 which is taxable income.

Original comment

“My position is that there needs to be a mechanism in place to reduce inequality over time.”  Why?  Ever since there have been Kings, Queens, and Emperors, has there been inequality.  Inequality is a nice motivator.  If everyone received the same no matter what their effort, you would lessen innovation and hard work.

Imagine you’re on an island with just 20 people.  Everyone is contributing to building shacks, gathering firewood, and fishing. But there’s one person that sits around and does nothing all day.  That person is capable but is just lazy.  Should he be invited to participate in the catch of the day, share in the warmth of the fire, and be allowed to stay in the community hut?  Or, do you think the other 19 people would kick him out of the group and tell him to go fend for himself?  What would be the right thing to do?  What if that person did go out on his own and built a better hut and a built a contraption to catch more fish than everyone else.  Should he then be forced to share or could he keep and eat what he caught?

“If Jeff Bezos puts all his 150 billions in an indexfund at 6%” Why don’t you consider what that money could do if it was spent to rid the world of disease or hunger instead.  How much cash do you think Bezos has out of his billions of net worth?  Most of his net worth is in Amazon stock and the value of that stock is determined by people who want to buy or sell it.  It could tank at any time and he could take a big hit on his unrealized gains. 

If you want to tax people who own stock, what value do you tax it at?  Let’s say, for example, I bought a stock for $100 and it’s now on the market for $1000.  Noting that the stock is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it.  How much of my wealth would be taxed: 100 or 1000?  Would the determination of that value be on December 31st every year?  What if the situation was reversed such as I bought the stock for $1000 and it’s now worth $100?  What if I own stocks from a foreign country instead?  As you can see, that becomes really complicated.  Today, if I bought the stock at $100 and it grows to $1000, I pay nothing because I have earned nothing.  If I sell the stock for $1000, then I have a realized capital gain of $900 which is taxable income.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

If feudalism is what you want, feudalism is what you will get. Don't come to me complaining when the serfs chop your heads off.

Original comment

If feudalism is what you want, feudalism is what you will get. Don't come to me complaining when the serfs chop your heads off.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (76 days ago)

I assume you pay some sort of property tax every year. In the UK it used to be "rates", now it's "council tax" - but even though it's the same property and you paid it last year, you pay every year?

And what about cars? Don't you have to buy registration plates every year or some similar annual "tax" on the same car you had last year?

So why shouldn't someone pay an annual tax on the squillions they inherited from their robber baron great grandparent?

Just because you've paid some tax once doesn't make you exempt forever.

Whatever it's called, it's a way to separate citizens from some of their money in order to fund things for the community (like the police and fire departments, or maintaining a bridge or...) and equitably it makes more sense to take cash from people who have lots in order to provide police and firefighters for everyone, including those who have little.

Or don't poor people deserve police protection?

Your argument doesn't hold together - and you come across like any other tax dodger.

Original comment

I assume you pay some sort of property tax every year. In the UK it used to be "rates", now it's "council tax" - but even though it's the same property and you paid it last year, you pay every year?

And what about cars? Don't you have to buy registration plates every year or some similar annual "tax" on the same car you had last year?

So why shouldn't someone pay an annual tax on the squillions they inherited from their robber baron great grandparent?

Just because you've paid some tax once doesn't make you exempt forever.

Whatever it's called, it's a way to separate citizens from some of their money in order to fund things for the community (like the police and fire departments, or maintaining a bridge or...) and equitably it makes more sense to take cash from people who have lots in order to provide police and firefighters for everyone, including those who have little.

Or don't poor people deserve police protection?

Your argument doesn't hold together - and you come across like any other tax dodger.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (76 days ago)

“I assume you pay some sort of property tax every year.”  Yes and I own several properties so I pay more than my fair share.  That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.  I would rather see a local income tax instead of having to pay tax on my home, even if it's the same dollar amount in the end.

Imagine a poor family barely able to pay for food who got their home from their parents when they died.  Now they owe $5,000 or more in taxes at the end of the year on their home.  Their only option is to sell the house and become homeless.

“And what about cars?”  Same thing as above.  Put the tax on the gas or something else other than the car.  So if I own a car I don’t drive, I should’t have to pay tax on it. But that registration tax on the car is minor like $45 a year so it’s not worth arguing about as much as property tax which is many thousands a year.  

“take cash from people who have lots in order to provide police and firefighters for everyone”  I agree those are social programs that are necessary.  But to pay for them based on the value of your home isn’t right.  Like I said above, I would rather pay an income tax to fund those social programs so if you ever lose your job and stop earning money, you can still keep your house that you worked all your life to buy.

Original comment

“I assume you pay some sort of property tax every year.”  Yes and I own several properties so I pay more than my fair share.  That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.  I would rather see a local income tax instead of having to pay tax on my home, even if it's the same dollar amount in the end.

Imagine a poor family barely able to pay for food who got their home from their parents when they died.  Now they owe $5,000 or more in taxes at the end of the year on their home.  Their only option is to sell the house and become homeless.

“And what about cars?”  Same thing as above.  Put the tax on the gas or something else other than the car.  So if I own a car I don’t drive, I should’t have to pay tax on it. But that registration tax on the car is minor like $45 a year so it’s not worth arguing about as much as property tax which is many thousands a year.  

“take cash from people who have lots in order to provide police and firefighters for everyone”  I agree those are social programs that are necessary.  But to pay for them based on the value of your home isn’t right.  Like I said above, I would rather pay an income tax to fund those social programs so if you ever lose your job and stop earning money, you can still keep your house that you worked all your life to buy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

tldr

Original comment

tldr

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

I feel sorry for you with your reading disability that if it’s too long, you cannot comprehend.  

But as luck has it, it was broken down into new paragraphs where a new subject or idea was started.  You could just read one paragraph, maybe a short one, and get some information.  Then when you have absorbed that, try a second paragraph.  Eventually you can train your brain to read it all in one go.

Original comment

I feel sorry for you with your reading disability that if it’s too long, you cannot comprehend.  

But as luck has it, it was broken down into new paragraphs where a new subject or idea was started.  You could just read one paragraph, maybe a short one, and get some information.  Then when you have absorbed that, try a second paragraph.  Eventually you can train your brain to read it all in one go.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

I feel sorry for you if you really think random strangers give a rat's behind about your rambling misinformed opinion pieces. There are experts, journalists and academics that know more than you, write better than you, and their articles are free.  Sorry, you don't make the cut.  Keep going by all means though if it makes you feel people care.

Original comment

I feel sorry for you if you really think random strangers give a rat's behind about your rambling misinformed opinion pieces. There are experts, journalists and academics that know more than you, write better than you, and their articles are free.  Sorry, you don't make the cut.  Keep going by all means though if it makes you feel people care.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

Those so-called journalists that you claim know more than me is funny.  They just spew out the same information that someone else has stated without any independent thought or research of their own.  One journalist just repeats what the other journalists say and they have a political agenda.  

This guy, Robert Reich, for example, spews out incorrect information all the time.  I even addressed many of his misleading comments above if you care to read them.  Feel free to comment and tell me why you think I’m wrong. I post without caring if you comment or not.  You don’t even have to read anything I write or comment either.  I don’t care one way or another.

I'm an expert in my field and my comments are free to the public as well.

You're welcome.

Original comment

Those so-called journalists that you claim know more than me is funny.  They just spew out the same information that someone else has stated without any independent thought or research of their own.  One journalist just repeats what the other journalists say and they have a political agenda.  

This guy, Robert Reich, for example, spews out incorrect information all the time.  I even addressed many of his misleading comments above if you care to read them.  Feel free to comment and tell me why you think I’m wrong. I post without caring if you comment or not.  You don’t even have to read anything I write or comment either.  I don’t care one way or another.

I'm an expert in my field and my comments are free to the public as well.

You're welcome.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (77 days ago)

You're an expert in your field!!!  Oh that actually made me laugh out loud, thanks.

Oh please please please will you share what this field is?  I have seen you taken apart on so many subjects.  And I have also seen people explain to you why you're wrong, clearly and methodically, and you suddenly disappear.

"They just spew out the same information that someone else has stated without any independent thought or research of their own" - oh wow, and said without a shred of irony?  Do you know how funny just this one sentence is to anyone that has read your comments before?

I for one would sooner spend my time reading from people who are paid to research and write, than some narcissist troll who spouts nonsense, can't fact-check, then runs away when people question him.  You post for attention which is why 'TLDR' triggered you.  We established you can't handle debate and you don't like the pressure, so you just like the thought of people reading your words.

But anyway, forget that, PLEASE tell everyone what your expertise is in!  

Original comment

You're an expert in your field!!!  Oh that actually made me laugh out loud, thanks.

Oh please please please will you share what this field is?  I have seen you taken apart on so many subjects.  And I have also seen people explain to you why you're wrong, clearly and methodically, and you suddenly disappear.

"They just spew out the same information that someone else has stated without any independent thought or research of their own" - oh wow, and said without a shred of irony?  Do you know how funny just this one sentence is to anyone that has read your comments before?

I for one would sooner spend my time reading from people who are paid to research and write, than some narcissist troll who spouts nonsense, can't fact-check, then runs away when people question him.  You post for attention which is why 'TLDR' triggered you.  We established you can't handle debate and you don't like the pressure, so you just like the thought of people reading your words.

But anyway, forget that, PLEASE tell everyone what your expertise is in!  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (77 days ago)

“Oh please please please will you share what this field is?” What encouragement do I have to share personal information on a public forum?  Zero.

“from people who are paid to research and write” Oh, didn’t you know that I’m paid by the RNC to post here on Boreme?  I’m sure you read messages about that before if you’ve been here longer than a month.

“ then runs away when people question him” Not true.  When it resorts to name calling or bringing up things unrelated to the conversation then it’s time to go.  For example, in a recent video someone mentioned that the USA lost the Vietnam war and we left with our tails between our legs (or something like that).  I could have written a very long message about how that was so wrong but it was off topic so I decided to end the conversation right there.  It was clear that respondent was just looking for a fight and not a conversation.

“You post for attention which is why 'TLDR' triggered you.” Wrong again.  I don’t post for attention.  If nobody responded to my messages, that’s fine.  So you can stop any time and I’m okay with that.  The “TLDR” part was stupid.  You don’t need to notify anyone that you didn’t read something.  So posting “I didn’t read your comment because it was too long” was making that person look stupid, not that there was something wrong with my comment.

Original comment

“Oh please please please will you share what this field is?” What encouragement do I have to share personal information on a public forum?  Zero.

“from people who are paid to research and write” Oh, didn’t you know that I’m paid by the RNC to post here on Boreme?  I’m sure you read messages about that before if you’ve been here longer than a month.

“ then runs away when people question him” Not true.  When it resorts to name calling or bringing up things unrelated to the conversation then it’s time to go.  For example, in a recent video someone mentioned that the USA lost the Vietnam war and we left with our tails between our legs (or something like that).  I could have written a very long message about how that was so wrong but it was off topic so I decided to end the conversation right there.  It was clear that respondent was just looking for a fight and not a conversation.

“You post for attention which is why 'TLDR' triggered you.” Wrong again.  I don’t post for attention.  If nobody responded to my messages, that’s fine.  So you can stop any time and I’m okay with that.  The “TLDR” part was stupid.  You don’t need to notify anyone that you didn’t read something.  So posting “I didn’t read your comment because it was too long” was making that person look stupid, not that there was something wrong with my comment.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (76 days ago)

Come on, Cary. Surely even you must know the USA didn't win the Vietnam War.

Original comment

Come on, Cary. Surely even you must know the USA didn't win the Vietnam War.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

It's genuinely incredible isn't it?  It explains a lot though.  If someone can't fact-check well enough to find out who won the Vietnam war, why on earth would he be able to fact-check parts of British law, or even the US constitution?  

"Stupid beliefs hunt in packs."

Original comment

It's genuinely incredible isn't it?  It explains a lot though.  If someone can't fact-check well enough to find out who won the Vietnam war, why on earth would he be able to fact-check parts of British law, or even the US constitution?  

"Stupid beliefs hunt in packs."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

Hahaha!! I knew you couldn't name this mystery "expertise" of yours!  Honestly, your lying skills are that of a 7 year old.  As usual, don't make ridiculous claims if you can't back them up.  Expert indeed!

Yes you've claimed to be paid to write for the RNC, but again that's nonsense as we all know.  It's your excuse for spending hours on a British website.  You definitely don't want debate or conversation because you're ill equipped to justify what you've been told (and unable to fact check), so you do it to get attention.  It makes you feel important, giving you an outlet for your very-important-opinions, and you usually even pretend that you're having a conversation with video maker themselves.  It's almost endearing.  But you know it's embarrassing, so you make up the RNC line as a facetious way of deflecting the conversation.

Yes, you do run away.  Every.  Single.  Time.  It's not usually when someone has been abrupt (although yes, you do like to play the whole "I'm offended, so I'm suddenly giving up").  It's actually when someone has backed you into a corner with a very simple question that you can't answer, or has pointed out how to fact-check something which totally debunks your point.  TheBob is particularly adept at this, but I think I've seen pretty much all the regulars do it with you at some point or other.  

Correct, no one needs to notify anyone that they didn't read something, and no one needs to share what they've been brainwashed with through rambling naive missives that haven't been fact-checked.  Yet both seem to happen here.  Personally, it's not the length of your posts that's the issue.  It's the fact that you have no intellectual rigour or stamina, so once someone pulls apart your argument and shows you how you're wrong, you just run away without ever adjusting your beliefs.  

Original comment

Hahaha!! I knew you couldn't name this mystery "expertise" of yours!  Honestly, your lying skills are that of a 7 year old.  As usual, don't make ridiculous claims if you can't back them up.  Expert indeed!

Yes you've claimed to be paid to write for the RNC, but again that's nonsense as we all know.  It's your excuse for spending hours on a British website.  You definitely don't want debate or conversation because you're ill equipped to justify what you've been told (and unable to fact check), so you do it to get attention.  It makes you feel important, giving you an outlet for your very-important-opinions, and you usually even pretend that you're having a conversation with video maker themselves.  It's almost endearing.  But you know it's embarrassing, so you make up the RNC line as a facetious way of deflecting the conversation.

Yes, you do run away.  Every.  Single.  Time.  It's not usually when someone has been abrupt (although yes, you do like to play the whole "I'm offended, so I'm suddenly giving up").  It's actually when someone has backed you into a corner with a very simple question that you can't answer, or has pointed out how to fact-check something which totally debunks your point.  TheBob is particularly adept at this, but I think I've seen pretty much all the regulars do it with you at some point or other.  

Correct, no one needs to notify anyone that they didn't read something, and no one needs to share what they've been brainwashed with through rambling naive missives that haven't been fact-checked.  Yet both seem to happen here.  Personally, it's not the length of your posts that's the issue.  It's the fact that you have no intellectual rigour or stamina, so once someone pulls apart your argument and shows you how you're wrong, you just run away without ever adjusting your beliefs.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (76 days ago)

“I knew you couldn't name this mystery ‘expertise’ of yours!” Nice try but it’s not going to work.  

“Yes you've claimed to be paid to write for the RNC”  You must be new here because that wasn’t my claim initially.  That’s what people thought so I went with it and just confirmed it for everyone.

“Yes, you do run away.  Every.  Single.  Time.” It seems someone will eventually have to get the last word or else the conversation will never end.  I already mentioned which conditions I will terminate the discussion and I feel that’s reasonable for anyone.

“Personally, it's not the length of your posts that's the issue” Then can you please explain what the “TL” in “TLDR” means?

 

Original comment

“I knew you couldn't name this mystery ‘expertise’ of yours!” Nice try but it’s not going to work.  

“Yes you've claimed to be paid to write for the RNC”  You must be new here because that wasn’t my claim initially.  That’s what people thought so I went with it and just confirmed it for everyone.

“Yes, you do run away.  Every.  Single.  Time.” It seems someone will eventually have to get the last word or else the conversation will never end.  I already mentioned which conditions I will terminate the discussion and I feel that’s reasonable for anyone.

“Personally, it's not the length of your posts that's the issue” Then can you please explain what the “TL” in “TLDR” means?

 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

Of course it's not going to work, because there's no expertise you can name.  That's exactly my point.  I know without any doubt that you won't name any, because it would take one of us here about 40 seconds to debunk it.  Busted.

I suspect that the original accusation about the RNC was based on the fact that your writing is so blinkered and full of propaganda that you could be a shill.  Personally, I can see that the quality of your writing isn't high enough, and your knowledge of politics is severely lacking.

The hypocrisy. Quite often your posts are abusive, accusing people of being stupid etc.  You have a list of get-out-clauses that mean you don't have to defend your point an more, and one of them happens to be "That's a meany thing to say, I give them." 

I can only speak personally, but if I write TLDR it means that it's too long to be worth reading bearing in mind the substance of what you write.  It is part of my profession to read, and I thoroughly enjoy it, but the people I read are better qualified, better informed, and better at writing.  If you were more able, then the length wouldn't be an issue.  Get it?

You may notice that from time to time, I just take the first point from any of your lists just to show how easily it can be debunked.  Even that became fruitless as you desperately tried to change the subject until... what a surprise... you ran away.

Here's a really tricky question for you, another one to avoid:  You don't want a debate, and you don't care if no one reads your posts.  So why do you post it on here?  Why don't you write it on a post-it note, read it the next day, then bin it?  I know the answer.  Do you?

Original comment

Of course it's not going to work, because there's no expertise you can name.  That's exactly my point.  I know without any doubt that you won't name any, because it would take one of us here about 40 seconds to debunk it.  Busted.

I suspect that the original accusation about the RNC was based on the fact that your writing is so blinkered and full of propaganda that you could be a shill.  Personally, I can see that the quality of your writing isn't high enough, and your knowledge of politics is severely lacking.

The hypocrisy. Quite often your posts are abusive, accusing people of being stupid etc.  You have a list of get-out-clauses that mean you don't have to defend your point an more, and one of them happens to be "That's a meany thing to say, I give them." 

I can only speak personally, but if I write TLDR it means that it's too long to be worth reading bearing in mind the substance of what you write.  It is part of my profession to read, and I thoroughly enjoy it, but the people I read are better qualified, better informed, and better at writing.  If you were more able, then the length wouldn't be an issue.  Get it?

You may notice that from time to time, I just take the first point from any of your lists just to show how easily it can be debunked.  Even that became fruitless as you desperately tried to change the subject until... what a surprise... you ran away.

Here's a really tricky question for you, another one to avoid:  You don't want a debate, and you don't care if no one reads your posts.  So why do you post it on here?  Why don't you write it on a post-it note, read it the next day, then bin it?  I know the answer.  Do you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (76 days ago)

“you won't name any, because it would take one of us here about 40 seconds to debunk it” That’s not the reason.  Why don’t you tell us the name of the company you work for (or own), what expertise you have, and what university degrees and/or certifications you have?

“Personally, I can see that the quality of your writing isn't high enough” See, it’s comments like this that is what I consider an Ad Hominem attack and will eventually get me to stop responding.  What does someone’s writing ability have to do with the substance of their comment?

“It is part of my profession to read” Just like the majority of professions, reading is a requirement.  Nothing out of the normal here.

“and better at writing.” Have you considered that writing may not be my expertise and you should just focus on the meaning of what is being said instead of criticizing someone’s spelling, grammar, or diction?  The point can still be valid but instead of trying to state what is wrong with the point of the discussion, you feel it necessary to do an Ad Hominem attack on someone’s writing style.

“how easily it can be debunked.” Your method of debunking something is like this.  I say the sky is blue and you say America lost the Vietnam war so I just debunked your comment.  

“So why do you post it on here” Ah, the million dollar question.  Once you can figure out my real motive, then you could become successful in life.  Why should I help you in your ventures to figuring out what makes others tick?  What’s in it for me?

Original comment

“you won't name any, because it would take one of us here about 40 seconds to debunk it” That’s not the reason.  Why don’t you tell us the name of the company you work for (or own), what expertise you have, and what university degrees and/or certifications you have?

“Personally, I can see that the quality of your writing isn't high enough” See, it’s comments like this that is what I consider an Ad Hominem attack and will eventually get me to stop responding.  What does someone’s writing ability have to do with the substance of their comment?

“It is part of my profession to read” Just like the majority of professions, reading is a requirement.  Nothing out of the normal here.

“and better at writing.” Have you considered that writing may not be my expertise and you should just focus on the meaning of what is being said instead of criticizing someone’s spelling, grammar, or diction?  The point can still be valid but instead of trying to state what is wrong with the point of the discussion, you feel it necessary to do an Ad Hominem attack on someone’s writing style.

“how easily it can be debunked.” Your method of debunking something is like this.  I say the sky is blue and you say America lost the Vietnam war so I just debunked your comment.  

“So why do you post it on here” Ah, the million dollar question.  Once you can figure out my real motive, then you could become successful in life.  Why should I help you in your ventures to figuring out what makes others tick?  What’s in it for me?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

Why don't I name my expertise?  Firstly, I have never claimed to have any expertise on here.  Secondly, my profession isn't of my argument on this thread.  Remember, I said there are experts that know more and write better than you, and you responded by pretending you were an expert.  So that's your claim, your burden of proof.  Amazing you're even trying the Tu Quoque fallacy on that.  

"What does someone’s writing ability have to do with the substance of their comment?"  In your case, everything.  The problem is, well organised writing usually reflects well organised thinking.  You set out your premises, share your sources, and explain how they entail your conclusion.  You don't.  You witter on about facts that Google could have helped you with.  You get challenged by someone, and you change the subject.  That's how you write, that's how you debate, and that's fundamentally how you think.  And no, I'm not criticising your spelling or grammar.  I'm criticising the inability to follow the thread of an argument, and to defend your points on an intellectual level, rather than throwing your teddy out of the pram when you find yourself in a corner.

I don't expect you to understand or admit when someone debunks your point.  But for example, you might say "In the USA we don't have private citizens that write parking tickets".  I go onto Google and look up parking regulations or "private parking enforcement USA" and find several examples of where private citizens in the USA write parking tickets.  Done.  

Meanwhile, your classic go-to technique is Whataboutery.  I say "There are experts better than you", you say "but I AM an expert", I say "Oh really?  On what?", and you say "Well what about YOUR expertise?"  But I could literally give you an example of you using this technique on every page you've written on.

"Ah, the million dollar question".  Not even a 2 cent question.  I said I already knew.  You like the attention.  No where in your real life do you get an outlet for your opinions.  I suspect that you also feel a loss of status, which is why you have these odd fantasies about having conversations with the people in the video. 

Original comment

Why don't I name my expertise?  Firstly, I have never claimed to have any expertise on here.  Secondly, my profession isn't of my argument on this thread.  Remember, I said there are experts that know more and write better than you, and you responded by pretending you were an expert.  So that's your claim, your burden of proof.  Amazing you're even trying the Tu Quoque fallacy on that.  

"What does someone’s writing ability have to do with the substance of their comment?"  In your case, everything.  The problem is, well organised writing usually reflects well organised thinking.  You set out your premises, share your sources, and explain how they entail your conclusion.  You don't.  You witter on about facts that Google could have helped you with.  You get challenged by someone, and you change the subject.  That's how you write, that's how you debate, and that's fundamentally how you think.  And no, I'm not criticising your spelling or grammar.  I'm criticising the inability to follow the thread of an argument, and to defend your points on an intellectual level, rather than throwing your teddy out of the pram when you find yourself in a corner.

I don't expect you to understand or admit when someone debunks your point.  But for example, you might say "In the USA we don't have private citizens that write parking tickets".  I go onto Google and look up parking regulations or "private parking enforcement USA" and find several examples of where private citizens in the USA write parking tickets.  Done.  

Meanwhile, your classic go-to technique is Whataboutery.  I say "There are experts better than you", you say "but I AM an expert", I say "Oh really?  On what?", and you say "Well what about YOUR expertise?"  But I could literally give you an example of you using this technique on every page you've written on.

"Ah, the million dollar question".  Not even a 2 cent question.  I said I already knew.  You like the attention.  No where in your real life do you get an outlet for your opinions.  I suspect that you also feel a loss of status, which is why you have these odd fantasies about having conversations with the people in the video. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Taxed Enough (76 days ago)

You say that I’m not able to follow the thread of a conversation but you cannot name one thing you stated that has anything to do with the subject of the video or the first comment I posted.  You are the one that went on a tangent with the first “TLDR” comment that gave no valuable information to the conversation.

You just keep going on and on about writing style, trying to figure out my expertise, Ad Hominem attacks, and expect me to still continue to converse with you.  If I leave because you’re not adding value to the subject of this video, you accuse me of backing out because I was debunked.

Original comment

You say that I’m not able to follow the thread of a conversation but you cannot name one thing you stated that has anything to do with the subject of the video or the first comment I posted.  You are the one that went on a tangent with the first “TLDR” comment that gave no valuable information to the conversation.

You just keep going on and on about writing style, trying to figure out my expertise, Ad Hominem attacks, and expect me to still continue to converse with you.  If I leave because you’re not adding value to the subject of this video, you accuse me of backing out because I was debunked.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (76 days ago)

That's a really good example.  You think the subject of this conversation is the video or whatever second-hand nonsense you wrote in your original comment.  It isn't.  The conversation that I started with you is about your posting behaviour, the assumptions you make, your motives, etc.  

If you want to say that my comments don't relate to the video, fine.  That's correct this time.  But that isn't the same as being unable to follow a line of argument in the resultant thread.  That's your mistake.

By the way, Ad Hominem would be attempting to refute your argument using personal abuse that isn't relevant.  In this case, I am not saying anything about your original argument whatsoever, because I can't be bothered to trawl through it and correct it.  Your inability to follow a conversation or justify your position doesn't make you automatically wrong, but it does make it fruitless to explain your mistakes or talk 'on subject'.

I've already figured out your expertise; none.  That's fine, most people don't - but then most people don't pretend they are experts, and they don't egotistically pretend their opinion should be as interesting to the rest of us as that of a genuine expert.

Original comment

That's a really good example.  You think the subject of this conversation is the video or whatever second-hand nonsense you wrote in your original comment.  It isn't.  The conversation that I started with you is about your posting behaviour, the assumptions you make, your motives, etc.  

If you want to say that my comments don't relate to the video, fine.  That's correct this time.  But that isn't the same as being unable to follow a line of argument in the resultant thread.  That's your mistake.

By the way, Ad Hominem would be attempting to refute your argument using personal abuse that isn't relevant.  In this case, I am not saying anything about your original argument whatsoever, because I can't be bothered to trawl through it and correct it.  Your inability to follow a conversation or justify your position doesn't make you automatically wrong, but it does make it fruitless to explain your mistakes or talk 'on subject'.

I've already figured out your expertise; none.  That's fine, most people don't - but then most people don't pretend they are experts, and they don't egotistically pretend their opinion should be as interesting to the rest of us as that of a genuine expert.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Robert Reich | Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest
Robert Reich | Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest
Veritasium | How to understand the image of a black hole
Veritasium | How to understand the image of a black hole
Tiff Needell drives a Tesla race car
Tiff Needell drives a Tesla race car
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos