Oh, knock it off. Everybody who's been here more than a month knows that your politics fall somewhere between economic interventionism and outright state socialism. Your posts in every discussion of Obamacare prove that. Don't even play.
Except for the rather inconvenient fact that I'm a free market proponent, and much more so than you are.
So it's "discussion of sensitive issues, philosophy, politics, religion, and often bizarre combinations of all four" unless Tamar considers them "pointless garbage." Is that just this week, or long term? Let's have another chorus of "Why, oh why can't we attract new members???"
As it leaves free market providers in place, establishes a marketplace with consumer choice, and does not require participation, I suggest you don't understand the meaning of the word market, just as you don't understand the meaning of the word statist. One word: immigration
No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. One picture for your one word: But I'm not going to even go down this road with you when your first step in that direction is a lie. Call it what it is -- and it is not the same thing as legal immigration -- or forget even having that discussion.
Yet again, however, we see you defending a law through which the state... follow along, now... is intervening... okay? You keeping up? ...in the economy. Which is a thing we call economic interventionism. Which is a flavor of Statism. Which is what you're defending. Which makes you a Statist. See? The math here is sort of remedial, but I feel you really need someone to walk you through it really slowly and carefully. And, by the way, with regard to illegal immigration -- I highlighted the illegal part, because you like to lie about it by omitting it, as if illegal and legal immigration are equivalent, when they're not -- when it comes to illegal immigration, do you know why it's a problem? 1. Attendant crime. Identity theft, drug-related crime (particularly violent drug-related crime, rape, murder, et cetera. 2. Labor displacement and wage diminution. But do you know what fuels illegal immigration from our country's end of the equation? Two things: 1. Economic interventionism -- Statism -- in the form of the minimum wage. Because illegal labor doesn't benefit from the minimum wage, unscrupulous businesses turn to illegal labor, which then displaces legal labor and creates a labor surplus which drives down wages. That's why no amount of "immigration reform" will ever stop illegal immigration. Because those unscrupulous businesses are still not going to employ legal labor, and more illegal labor will simply come in to fill the newly-vacated jobs at illegal wages. 2. Once again, a hyperregulatory, overreaching State which bans controlled substances "for our own good", leading to the empowerment and enrichment of drug cartels which employ illegal immigrants as drug mules and which bring the violence attendant to their gang wars into this country along with their trade. So let's recap: 1. You support a law that is inherently Statist in nature; you've either deluded yourself or are merely trying to delude the rest of us about its profound and devastating negative impact on the American people, not sure really which it is; you're either an idiot or an asshole depending on which it is. 2. You support a phenomenon which is a profoundly and devastatingly negative effect of Statism, no matter the negative impact on the American people. And yet you insist that you're not a Statist. You're full of .
The very concept of illegal immigration requires granting authority to the state. Dress it up anyway you'd like, but you are a statist, through and through. You are the very thing you mock. Now get lost.
"Granting authority to the state" is not Statism. Advocating for central economic and/or social planning in the hands of the state is. Central economic planning in the vein of, say, a mandated minimum wage, or mandated purchase of health insurance. Social planning in the vein of, say, gun control. These are all things you have repeatedly and loudly supported, and they are all expressions of Statism. National defense is not. (The military-industrial complex is, but not simple national defense.) Border enforcement is not. Those are legitimate functions of government, of which there are a very, very few. You propose a false dilemma between Statism and pure Anarchism. Y'know, you mock me for "not knowing what words mean", but I think you'd better look this shit up, because -- again -- either you're making a fool of yourself or you take the rest of us for fools... which, really, just means you're making a fool of yourself another way.
And more words to say that you think the state should centrally plan population and demographics. Yep, I called it, you're an unrepentant statist.
Those would be your words, not mine. I cordially invite you to take your and shove it up your urethra.
Nope. If I didn't write them, they're not my words. They're an attempt to dishonestly distort my position, but they're all you.
Here are some free market requirements that I strongly support: Free trade: x free flow of goods: x free flow of services: x free flow of capital: x free flow of labor: x free flow of information: x Corporation as legal person: x Eliminate subsidies: x Transparency/accountability rules: x Reduce/eliminate zoning: x My credentials are probably stronger than yours, if for no other reason than I actually understand what the term means.
Captain X will now either: (A) Refute gul point by point or (B) Post more anime so we can keep this thread on the first page and annoy Zombie
Depends what you mean by gun control. A lot of it is BS, but some is worth a look. Obama is a centrist, as am I.
Butthurt is written as one word, dumbass. And your posting history shows you to be the opposite of what you claim to be.
And where did I say no one should post this or discuss it? That would be nowhere did I say any such thing. Can you only post if I approve of the content? New people will only join up if I approve of the content? No? Then what was the point of that silly, irrelevant diatribe about my opinion? And this thread pointless garbage because it's meant to be some kind of gotcha to annoy Zombie and not much else.
So anyway, it seems Zombie has no opinion on Medved. Too bad, I was planning to ask him next whether Karl Rove was a liar.
