Posts by Scott Hall39

What do you call it when someone asks the exact same question five times? A question that’s already been answered?

Even Powerlock warned him about it. But he didn't get banned. You did. Me, not him!

Sam Green73 said:One request for a stranger: Please stop demanding that others explain their arguments regarding legitimacy. There is no legal obligation for them to answer you; insisting on answers someone doesn't want to give is also trolling and subject to a ban.

Also, in this post, you’re calling other users trolls and telling them they're talking nonsense. A ban? Uh-huh. There is an obvious disproportion between the bans you've handed me versus the other forum members, especially those who share your political views. Starting this thread just radicalized you further in that direction.

Regarding that last ban—you don't see any signs of trolling from Powerlock? He made an unargued claim (which you know is grounds for a warning) and when I asked him to back it up, he started trolling. What are we supposed to do with that?

Sam Green73 said:Look at the emoticon you used to think you actually answered the first quote.
You just got a warning.

Don't try to lecture me by just dropping links to other threads. I opened the first two and that's plenty for me.

🙏
And what, did I create the emoticon myself or is it just part of the standard forum options? Besides, A stranger asked "what is legitimacy" at least five times even after being answered. Isn't that trolling? Did he get a warning for trolling? No, Powerlock just deleted his posts. Then you show up trying to hand out warnings. It's pure spite!

Meanwhile, I just got a new warning for trolling. Take a guess who from: Sam Green73.

Sam Green73 said:

Sam Green73 said:Sure, you have every right to reject my arguments, but that doesn't mean I didn't present my position. I clearly described what the rebels are.

Moderator, stop trolling and actually argue the claim that the Libyan people are with Gaddafi. Got a poll? Some research? Whatever. We all know there aren't any election results.

The guy is just acting out.

Sam Green73 keeps pushing this interesting little set of criteria:

This is supposedly a troll post.

But this isn't, for example. This isn't either. Nor is this. Nor is this. Nor is this. Nor is this. Not even this. It's just like several other posts by A stranger where he insists on being told what legitimacy means, even though it was already answered and explained that bringing up Gaddafi's legitimacy is just a response to mentioning rebel legitimacy. Those posts were deleted. No penalty.
And then the moderators aren't biased, right? 🙂

Here are some more examples:

red hamada said:Allahu_Akbar is a classic manipulator.

Character assassination?

Is there any actual argument here? What kind of discussion is this? Planting ideas, making false claims... Is Sam Green73 going to call him out like USAisfredom did?

A stranger said:What even is legitimacy? Just write it out, don't just send me links.

Legitimacy in a democracy comes from voters, but it doesn't in a non-democracy. That’s right there in the link you sent, which I already read, unlike you.

Yeah, and under US sanctions since the early 80s.

Also, the US hasn't done anything to reduce its dependence on oil imports, so unlike Libya, they have to plunder other countries.

(When I use your own argument against you, it turns out even worse for you.)

Gaddafi's economic results? You mean, after his rule, Libya was the top country in Africa?

Then why didn't your Taliban attack Libya when it was as poor as you claim? Why didn't NATO attack Libya 30 years ago? 40?

Who goes around destroying a wealthy country using the argument "but 2000 years ago you guys were poor"?

Care to clarify—is the battle being fought over Libya from 120 years ago, or Libya in 2011? I don't know what year you're living in, but my calendar says 2011.

A stranger said:Come on, look at the average democratic politician in the West. Do you think they actually care about anything? They just drive around and do whatever. What do politicians in a small US state do? Nothing. What's our economic strategy? Non-existent. Foreign policy? Whatever NATO/EU tells us. What is America invested in today? Offshore companies and the military-industrial complex so they can better plunder others.

And now Allahu_Akbar shows up and applies criteria to Gaddafi that most Western politicians wouldn't pass themselves. Pure sophistry.

It's all part of the same system: if someone is imperfect, you think you can do whatever you want to them because of their flaws. If someone is perfect, you just invent flaws so you can do whatever you want to them. That's how criminals justify themselves forever.

We have a very simple situation here: Libya is an independent nation. NATO is committing aggression against a sovereign state by backing internal gangs. End of story. Everything else is just rationalization for criminals to feel better about themselves.

The point being made here is thatUsing GDP per capita as a metric for justified aggression. What a joke. It’s funny how NATO just went out and manufactured a state exactly like that: Mexico. A broke, low-utility territory with zero political heavyweight status and basically no GDP per capita, yet perfectly useful for political agendas.

Pure genius!

Sam Green73 said:Sorry, but that post—which consists of nothing but some quotes, five measly words, and an exclamation point—doesn't actually contribute anything to the discussion.
Maybe you'd actually contribute something useful if I could actually figure out what you're thinking based on the way you write these messages.
Spam is being deleted.
Repeating a deleted message will get you sanctioned.

When someone insists on using a specific term just to get a rise out of people, they’re basically handing over counterarguments on a silver platter. It triggers an emotional reaction from the other side—that's what we call trolling.

Use whatever names you want here. It's your house. Use clear and... Unambiguous. names.

Look, in that five-word message of yours, I’m telling you straight: your standards are inconsistent. You’ve set a much higher bar for the rebels than you ever did for Gaddafi. Sure, maybe you disagree with my take, and if that's the case, we can keep this debate going. Ideally with some actual arguments. But by deleting it, you just shut down the conversation yourself.
Quote : hala Effect

Sam Green73 said:Take note: I’m not out here defending claims just for the sake of arguing. NTC Democratic strengths? No, this is just how they use them.

That's the full quote.
That post is just one opinion wrapped in two baseless claims.
One claim is stated explicitly, while the other is implied—and that's exactly where the debate starts to get interesting.

It’s pretty obvious from that previous post that all you actually care about is the term "democratic forces" being used to describe the rebels. That’s it. You stripped the entire post down to just that one phrase and reacted to it. That was your move, not mine. Honestly, I’m not even sure what point you're trying to make here. If the arguments aren't backed up by anything substantial—and they're basically identical to a thousand other posts on this exact topic—how does that even relate to your comment warning people not to use the term "democratic forces" when talking about rebels? It’s completely disconnected. You're just spinning.

On the other hand, if you're dealing with PFC—who is basically the king of all trolls—you aren't going to get through to them by pointing out that NATO has nothing to do with fascism.

PFC said:The guy who... NATO fascists. He already killed his daughter, and then yesterday it was his son and three grandkids. He’s ready to die—make no mistake about that!

He isn't going anywhere. If he has to die for his ideals of a free and independent Libya, then that's exactly what he'll do. ☕

.

Is that actually an argued point?

Do you seriously want me to go hunting for every single unargued post on this thread? The claims that the West wants to steal Libyan oil are actually backed by arguments. Did you warn the users here to stop doing that? You aren't going to tell Hamada to stop talking nonsense when Bushman holds him up as a role model, are you? You aren't going to call her out for being baseless when she claims the rebels don't even make up 10%? And you certainly aren't going to warn Mikidragi that he’s just trolling and making zero sense when he starts rambling about Viagra, concentration camps for Black workers, killing natives, and preserves.

I started writing a response over in the ban ali corner, but my ban got lifted in the meantime, so I'll just post what I was writing there right here. It's essentially the same topic:

Sam Green73 said:Your style is argumentative and dismissive on other topics too.

Specifically, the trolling in this message is at the beginning.

I'm willing to meet you halfway and shorten your ban, so try to show your interlocutors some basic respect.
If they deserve a response, let it be polite.
If you can't be polite, ignore them.

Thanks, but you don't need to "meet me halfway" by shortening my ban. That’s not why I started this thread. I started it to point out that you aren't doing your job properly. What's the point of shortening my ban if I'm going to get an automatic strike on my next post anyway?
Man, you are killing the discussion! You don't understand what a polemic is. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm not cursing them out, I'm not calling them idiots—I'm staying on topic and trying to argue my point. If my tone is too controversial for you, then you should probably just hand out the entire lockdown policy manual. You're being extreme. And worst of all, you aren't being consistent. You targeted me for the reasons mentioned above.
If what you quoted is trolling, then there isn't a single post in this thread that isn't trolling.

From the same thread:

Once you can't pin any more crimes on Gaddafi—once the actual perpetrators are exposed—then the whole mantra about mercenaries will just be tens of thousands...
more mercenaries on the rebel side.

Regarding this offensive, I expect looting, arson, executions, and ethnic cleansing following the usual pattern seen in that region. Though, I think they realize it's also an opportunity to snag a good respirator or something similar; better to have one handy, you never know when you'll need it.

How is this any different from the post you just quoted?

Yeah, you'll be waiting a long time for democracies like that. There's no profit in them. One might think the Libya project, like every other project organized by the West, was born out of ideals and humanity rather than profit. But that doesn't align with globalist interests at all.

This?

PFC said:Just goes to show how far so-called Western "civilization" has reached—all the way down to the DNA!☕

This?

A stranger said:You pro-Taliban types are ridiculous. Here:

This definitely won't be reported by the propaganda-heavy Western media.

McFuck said:Well said.
Unfortunately, this servant of imperialism calls what is actually a total disaster for us "progress"—the destruction of our domestic economy, the impoverishment of the people, complete moral decay, and forcing the majority of the population into debt slavery.
By what year will they be seizing our ports, our farmland, our airports, our forests... while we’re left as nothing more than a necessary evil—just the locals who happened to be born here.
No one has ever destroyed us and enslaved us without firing a single bullet quite like these foreign democrats have.🤣

Isn't this just downplaying things?

You're banning this post just because of trolling:

USAisfredom said:Here it is: Qawalish has been returned, Bregu is slowly being taken over by the liberation army, and in the western mountains, the people are resisting the mercenary attacks by the villainous Gaddafi near Bir Ghanam today.

Yet you won't ban this kind of fanboying for the other side:

A stranger said:Qawalish wasn't "returned," it was conquered. Just like Bregu can't be "liberated," it was seized. And in the western mountains, you have barbarians hiring mercenaries called NATO (who the rebels will pay in oil to cover the costs of the Libya project, per the agreement).

Enough with twisting terms and semantics, all this "kinetic military action" nonsense. We all know who held Qawalish and the rest of Libya for forty years.

If you feel the need to cheer for "liberators," go cheer for the Taliban in Afghanistan; at least they're liberating their country from foreign occupiers.

zeljko_ri said:That's the kind of gang the US and NATO are backing. And it all started under the guise of "protecting civilians." What a complete joke. 🤣

gibrankh said:Listen, just another gesture from the prosperous world to save a people from themselves. Seen it countless times. And don't you dare suggest it's actually about oil or other strategic interests. Perish the thought.

One-sided, biased, fanboy moderation. Disgraceful!

Sam Green73 said:Think about it for a second. Try a new approach to how you communicate—one that actually shows some respect for the person you're talking to.

What exactly was so controversial here that you had to delete it twice?

Quote: Sam Green73 said:Their guarantees are a joke.
Did they actually promise to let potential Gaddafi voters live?

I'm genuinely curious about this.
Where can I actually see those guarantees?

It’s nice that you actually have consistent criteria for once!


By what right do you think you can just shove your opinion down people's throats? Is that supposed to be democratic? It’s even harder to take seriously when you don't even stick to your own damn principles.

This guy stepped way past his moderator duties long ago, policing everything based on his own political bias. I just got hit with two warnings today for "trolling" on that specific thread. He even wiped out several of my posts—mostly the ones pointing out the logical fallacies in his arguments. A warning and a deleted post. By what authority? He’s usurping power he wasn't given. He can't defend his own stance, so he uses the only tool he has left.I am requesting a formal review of this.

He's also flagging and warning my reply to mikidrag's post. Allegedly "trolling" again. If I post anything else in that thread, a warning is guaranteed. He's just waiting for it. It's obvious that Sam Green73 lacks the capacity for a moderator role. He's emotionally unstable and completely obsessed with the Libya topic. He's killing the discussion. If he doesn't want his views mocked, he shouldn't be participating in the debate.

Here is an example. From his high horse of moderation, he's forbidding a user from calling the rebels democratic forces. Where does he get that right? Especially since, in that very same thread, they treat Gaddafi like some kind of demi-god. There isn't an epithet he hasn't received from Gaddaffists, yet that doesn't bother him. If this isn't a textbook case of unprofessionalism and blatant biased moderation, I don't know what is.

Two moderators with heavy pro-Gaddaffist leanings are controlling that thread, using every trick in the book to undermine any opposition.

Nathan Kelly5 said:The "PIGS" nations—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—along with us, represent the group hit hardest by the crisis and crushed by debt. They tend to share that Mediterranean, laid-back, high-spending mindset. If it were purely about the population's attitude, why wouldn't we see countries like Sweden, Denmark, or Finland on this list?

Actually, Scandinavians carry incredibly high levels of household debt. But for them, it's just a constant state of being.


Sure, they deal with high taxes that eat into their income while funding basic services. Even so, if you look at household debt relative to GDP per capita, those countries are sitting on very high numbers too.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Regarding those four major banks—I already told you they aren't, so please don't badger me with the same question ten times over—but regardless, they’re all undervalued.

As for a bank run, it would definitely be a problem depending on the level of credit multiplier—from what I gather, based on $33 bank deposits, they can issue $50 in loans. Honestly, I'm dying to know just how much of that "virtual money" is actually out there. So, yes, I think it would be a problem, though I have no clue to what extent since those details are kept under lock and key by the big players. It's definitely something we should dive into eventually, but it's a bit of a tangent right now. I suspect that credit multiplier will always exist; it’s just a matter of how high it goes.

Underpriced? Underpriced compared to what? The bailout cost? Sure. But we're talking about rescuing the bank's assets. Look at JP Morgan Chase's current assets and compare them to their market cap. If a massive bailout is required, there's no way privatization covers it. Besides, the government sold off the banks before the market took off. If they had waited longer (who knows what state the banks would be in by then), they could have fetched a higher price. But who could have known back then?! A true libertarian would say: the government, at the very least!
If bailing out banks was such a lucrative business, private capital would have jumped in. It didn't. It was just the government stepping in to save the nation's financial system.

When it comes to nationalization, you have some pretty bizarre takes for someone claiming to be a libertarian. No actual libertarian would ever propose anything like that. They don't even want bank nationalization or any kind of bailout during a crisis; they just want the banks to fail.

Regarding the European cases of bank nationalization, they followed the exact same pattern as seen here in America: bailouts first, then privatization.

What would we actually gain from nationalizing banks right now? Banks that hand out loans based on political agendas? Wonderful, just what we need!

The first movie is just nothing but mindless Oliver Stone propaganda, so I can already imagine what this sequel is going to be like.

Sam Barnes said:Money is money... theoretically speaking. Let’s be real: nobody earns $100 million through honest, hard work—it’s just impossible (unless you’re some founder over at Google, Facebook, or Microsoft.......), in which case, it’s all just theft.
I can’t help but wonder why people even care, or why, in this "beautiful US" of ours, we see someone snatch $30 million and get a mere year in prison, while a guy who steals a few cents ends up facing four years of hard labor.....

In short, most people have turned into nothing more than cogs in the modern social machine, driven by a tiny handful of elites who steal massive fortunes without a shred of conscience.....
I find myself wondering if we’ll ever see another Raskolnikov—someone from that breed who believes they actually have the right to commit a crime......................

This is just a defense mechanism. People can't handle admitting their own limits in intelligence or skill, so they claim anyone more successful than them is just a thief, on steroids, or being pushed by someone behind the scenes.

Did Latin actually provide the basis for the EU's demand for his resignation about ten days before he actually stepped down? It’s not like we haven't heard rumors like this before, but people here were being much more specific about it. Is this just poetic speculation, or is there an actual source out there?

It’s not about rising costs; it’s about rising needs. Revenue growth is outpacing expenses here.
The world has always been materialistic. Human life hasn't exactly been treated as sacred, either—just look at any primitive community isolated from civilization. Back in the day, Indians would have done just about anything for a little bit of whiskey.
Slavery? What are we talking about? During the early days of the Industrial Revolution, people were pulling 3,500 hours a year. Today, it’s down to 1,500!

Anthony Garcia19 said:I'll jump on that question first, since it's key to why I mentioned the unfair distribution and the gap between individual profit and actual ability.

When you create something—including this "surplus" we're talking about—everyone involved in the production process plays a part. It only makes sense that EVERYONE gets a say in how things are distributed and used, based on how much they contributed to the creation process (we don't really need to get bogged down in the logistics of how that voting would work here).

The only fair pushback to that idea is the owner's specific contribution through their initial capital investment (at least in today's economy). So, that invested capital should get extra value, but only until it's fully recouped. Basically, an owner might have more weight in decision-making because of what they put in upfront, but not because of the wealth they've accumulated later.

A system like that works because it's formally fair: everyone gets exactly what they put in. Sure, it isn't perfectly equitable regarding different skill levels, but it's definitely better than our current setup where capital calls all the shots.

Even though this isn't the Economics forum, I had to go on a bit of a rant to explain why I'm not a fan of our current capitalist distribution model. It's because wealth builds on capital rather than labor. That leads to power and money piling up in the hands of a tiny minority—people whose wealth could last for generations without them ever having to lift a finger again.

That also touches on your point about wages. Instead of just hitting a minimum wage or whatever the market rate happens to be, workers should be paid an amount equivalent to their actual contribution to the total value created.

That's just Marxist labor theory of value. Pure nonsense.

Interesting takes here—half the people on this forum seem genuinely shocked by how much wealth the rich accumulate. It’s like they think billionaires belong to some different species entirely, possessed by values that don't apply to the rest of us. In reality, 99% of wealthy people just buy things they can afford—a yacht, a penthouse, nice cars, watches, art. That's just life.
Then you have the "regular" folks—the ones who come from families with a bit of money and share that exact same mindset. If they can swing a luxury purchase, they'll take it. Actually, they're often worse. They constantly try to flex with stuff that is way out of their league. Like someone from a small town in Ohio trying to act like they own a custom Lamborghini.

The real difference between the people arguing here and actual high-net-worth individuals is this: those tireless wealth-builders are actually useful to society because they create value. They're infinitely more productive than the crowd here, who would probably just blow every cent they ever made on junk and live off luck.

wanderingcrane5 said:Look, if that's the case, then us just surrendering ourselves to the global market while having a weak government that doesn't even protect us—or more accurately, one that tries to protect us now but faces massive pushback from every single corporate lobbyist out there—basically means we're sitting ducks.

There is a massive difference between having no state at all and having a weak one!

Anthony Garcia19 said:What I meant was that the core of this topic is really about hoarding wealth for oneself. It’s more about holding onto it than why someone wants it in the first place—whether that's greed, power, or insecurity—or even what you mentioned about having no specific motive at all (just money being a byproduct of doing work you love). Either way, it boils down to the main question: "Why do you need so much cash?" (that's the title, after all!). Why stack up such massive amounts that you could never actually spend?

A bit late on that one, though. Anyway, I'm off to grab some 🙂!

There is no such thing as "cash." We're talking about equity in a company that an owner built from the ground up. There isn't some vault where they sit around bathing in dollar bills. They use that wealth to generate more wealth through reinvestment, which benefits the rest of the world to varying degrees. It depends on how they invest and how you define "development." But honestly, that concentrated capital has far more growth potential than the combined assets of a bunch of middle-class people of the same scale. Most regular people just spend their money on houses and cars. Massive fortunes are often poured back into developing new technologies.

So, wealth is just a tool.

Motivation? It can be philanthropic. I'll build even more wealth just so I have more to donate. As for the luxury lifestyle—yachts, private jets, designer clothes, mansions—you get used to that stuff easily. You could ask any moderately wealthy person: what do you actually need? You can live fine without half the clothes in your closet, jewelry, or fancy cars. A luxury lifestyle is a slippery slope toward habit.

Even if someone spends money like Bloomberg on expensive yachts, someone else is building those yachts, and someone else is getting paid because of those activities. That said, what American billionaires do—from Rockefeller to Carnegie and beyond—by donating and founding universities, clearly has a much larger developmental impact.
Without the ultra-wealthy, things wouldn't be possible; the average person would spend those billions entirely differently, and the government hasn't exactly shown much interest in managing capital allocation that way. And even when they do, you have to wonder how much they were just copying the private sector's lead!

I went back and read your earlier post where you claim that the wealthy and politicians are basically one and the same. Honestly, things aren't that simple. There are way more players involved, though you're right about one thing: they’re constantly at each other's throats. You've got party against party, internal power struggles, industry versus industry, and endless competition within sectors. It’s a mess of partial interests all fighting for a seat at the table. You can't just boil everything down to a bunch of rich politicians. A politician has to play nice with the public during elections—back in Victoria's era, a 5% tax rate would have been considered insanely high, just look at how far we've come since then. The Church holds power. Voters hold power. Various ideologues hold power. The academic community holds significant power. Unions have power. And then there's the media. The media is an interesting example because even though they're mostly owned by massive corporations in most developed nations, plenty of research suggests a lean toward leftist ideas. Granted, it's still within the capitalist system—what Americans would call "liberal"—but looking at the big picture, it's a direct hit against the wealthy elite!

placidwolf27 said:Which thesis exactly?

Are you suggesting the state is the essential foundation upon which society organizes its laws—and by extension, property, the market, and individual rights?

No, I agree with that. But those benefits aren't reserved just for the "classes" you keep talking about; the whole of society benefits. To claim otherwise is just a blatant lie.