Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Vic
Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. ..
Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.
Vic, you really need to crawl back under what rock you came from. I've already indicated I don't care to discuss issues with someone who has behaved as you have, but you post.
And the crap you post: here, you can't go two sentences without going from saying I use a straw man, to making your attack based on the straw man of what you say I would say.
Of course, you get both terribly wrong, but the irony is shameless.
What? You think I'll stop posting because you ask me to? That's hilarious.
Like all the other trolls on ATPN, you have a predictable pattern. Yours is straw man. Everytime some posts something you disagree with, you ignore their post and go off on a longwinded argument about how they posted something else, usually extreme and ridiculous, the easier for you to mock and condescend, and with which to contrast the beauteous light of your beloved agenda (which, of course, can never be viewed critically but only in the most glowing terms). In short, you're a pompous partisan hack.
Oh BTW, telling me that am "terribly wrong" without any proof besides your word is beyond weak.
Vic, the thing is, you are nothing but a windbag, filled with hot air and no substance.
You lie, you name call, you are the two year old who runs around posting the equivalient of "poopoohead" to each of my posts. Unfortunately, the best thing I can do for most of them is to not respond, you can't say a whole lot to the poopyhead poster other than to occassionally point out their problem.
You throw around words like troll and hack, because like the two year old who has learned that yelling POOP or a curse word gets them attention, you find the only power you can get by using them, since you lack any from your actual argument, though you also get some attention by trolling absurd arguments - and shamelessly say anyone else is a troll.
You're the worst poster I know of here; I've had PM saying you are hopefully getting an involuntary vacation for your behavior. Apparently that hasn't happened yet.
So I'll leave it to this post for now as the occassional reminder that you lack the courtesy to refrain from butting in where you are unwanted, my comments to others, which for technical reasons I am unable to exclude you from, the equivalent of a public forum where I don't have security guards to keep the riff raff out. That's your right to be rude, though, but you aren't impressing anyone with the junk you post.
If this has a lack of specifics, it's because there's a lack of specifics in your post to respond to. It's a poopyhead post.
But for the record, I'll also get your following unwanted response to my next post out of the way. I haven't read it yet; I'm going to cut and past and respond now:
The idea that you actually believe this load of BS is comical in the extreme.
Another poopyhead comment lacking any substance. Pretty hypocritical too given your comment previously about a lack of substance in criticism.
If government always follows its duty to the public,
Let's just stop there for a moment, since you yet again use a straw man to post your nonsense - I never said government always *follows* its duty to the public. You are twisting the point I made, in discussing why CEOs are not better to turn to for charity to replace the government in meeting society's social services needs. I made the point that they have different agendas and government *has* a duty to the public. Your changing my words into a straw man that it *always follows* the duty sets you up to nit pick.
because that is "far, far more effective in many areas," then why is the public always complaining about government, and why is government always doing things the public disapproves of? Or are you telling me that you love the Bush admin and all that it has done because govt. follows it duty to the public?
So, your question is, with the hundreds of billions of dollars our government spends on services, why there are any complaints from the public about those services?
Are you that clueless? Name me any service provided by any group in society to another involving billions of dollars and millions of people for low budgets as we typically have with tax-based programs about which there is no complaint. Because there are many complaints about healthcare, should we let the infomercial 'diet pill' sellers take over all health care in America, the way you are agreeing to respond to any complaints about government services be replaced by the tiny amounts available from private charity?
What do you not grasp about the difference between the sliver of money available from charity compared to the far larger need which is met through democratically elected government, what do you hate so much about democracy that any time the public votes for programs for the public good you are there to hate them?
If the dark nefarious CEO's have no duty to the public, then how do they get people to buy their products? Take a business course. FFS.
Hey, whaddya know, another straw man - "no duty to the public" of course they have no duties to the public, you again twist what I said to set you up for the absurd response.
They have the duty to follow the law, for example. As for things benefitting the public, we need to distinguish between their role as CEO and as private citizen; recognize that in their role as CEO, they have far less duty to the public than you might think. Much of the things they do in the public interest are really things they need to do to protect the shareholders. Does putting out dangerous products help the shareholders when customers stop buying their brand? No, so they put out safer ones.
That's not adequate of course; we have all kinds of unsafe products and dishonest advertising that would happen if not for the laws to protect consumers.
So we're talking about CEOs as private citizens - and as such, they *cannot begin* to addres the need for social services the government provides. Just look at the numbers to see how absurd your point is. They are able to provide a fine *supplement* to the social services society needs, and that's it.
This exchange with you was as always a waste of our and the forum readers' time because you bring absurd points to the post.