B
BlueAlpha1
Guest
You called me a socialist, yet I was a supporter of Donald Trump, voted for him the day the polls opened in Florida, and got the vote out with my family and friends. The deciding issues this election were illegal immigration, radical Islamic terrorism, and cultural Marxists burning and looting in our streets.Health Care
I don't think you understood my point. You can't claim something as a right if it has to be produced by something else. If there was no such thing as health insurance, and everybody had to pay cash money, everybody would still have to come up with the cash to pay for their health. Would you be opposed to that? Or you do think some people should receive more than what they pay in return? If so, do you acknowledge that if some people get more than what they pay in return, then some people have to pay more than what they get? If so, who gets to choose who gets more than what they pay, and who gets less than what they pay?
Guns
Using my above argument, people should have the ability to buy a gun, if they have the money to pay. I also believe that health care should be like guns. No money, no honey. No insurance middle man in the middle.
Free Speech
This only applies to "publicly owned property" not private property. The above two examples (guns and health care) involve exchanging private property (money) for other private property (drugs or getting cut open by a professional). Free speech doesn't exists on private property.
Fire Fighters
Nope, you the absence of government provided services is not barbarism, it's private solutions to the same problems.
For example, absent a government paid for fire department, there would still be firefighters, who would likely be employed by insurance companies, AND would be much more efficient that public fire fighters. Why? Because that guy's house that burned down is now going to have to be paid for by the insurance company. But if the insurance companies had their own private fire fighting companies, they would INCENTIVIZED to put out the fire before it destroyed the guys house. In fact, there would not likely be a fire in the first place, since the insurance company would do regular fire checks as part of the insurance contract.
You're using examples that are structurally different than health care. Veterans agreed to a contract, and the government is not fulfilling their part of the contract. That's different from politicians promising things to get elected and then expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.
I'm pretty sure you don't really know what capitalism is. When I advocate for no minimum wage, it's because I've been swayed by learned economists who explained it clearly and succinctly
For Example:
https://www.amazon.com/Walter-E.-Williams/e/B001H6W1VW
You'd do well to read a few books on economics .
So you want to attribute everything to a president that happened on his watch? You SURE you want to use that as pro/con evidence for Obama's presidency?
There's plenty more BAD THINGS that happened in America from 2008 to 2016 that "happened on his watch."
Here's just a few things that "happened on his watch"
Cuba
Cubans may die because of Obama's last minute decision, that's what. That doesn't bother you?
Boycott of "which" people? The Cubans who are busting their ass to get here? Or all the other immigrants? Are you NOT in favor of Trumps immigration plan? Are YOU supporting open borders?
War With Cuba
So, if we don't have open borders with Cuba we're going to war? When did that happen?
I disagree. And I recommend (again) that you do some reading on economics rather than just repeating what sounds good to support your argument.
Lots of contradictions on one sentence. I don't want this thread to turn into a wasted lesson on economics that would end up falling on deaf ears, since you've more or less made up your mind.
But just a few points.
Smaller governments would make corporate fascism impossible, because it's the governments (bribed by the corporate fascists) that make the LAWS which protect the corporate fascists.
But your argument is essentially one of socialism over capitalism, based on the same arguments people generally use. Not original. Without governments, the strong evil people would dominate and exploit the weak and innocent people, and it's up to advanced and morally superior thinkers like you to point it out to us knuckle dragging, right wing fascists.
Just remember this old and true saying, young warrior of righteousness:
If you're in your twenties and your'e not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you're in your forties and you're not a conservative, you have no brain.
verily verily I say unto thee, young defender of the weak, seek the the truth, and the truth shall set thee free:
https://mises.org/library/capitalism-and-socialism
https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
You should check your condescending tone on your pseudo-intellectual economic talk, because you've just swung and missed badly in trying to categorize me. Once again, this country is already part socialist with everything the government provides from schools to bridges. Was this a socialist country when we already had all these programs under neo-con rule from 2000-2008? But I get it - from a far right point of view I guess a nationalist centrist like myself would appear to be a socialist.
Accusing me of wanting "open borders" is just patently false and either ignorant of my post history or intellectually dishonest, so I'm not gonna spend long on that.
We agree on Trump but disagree on Obama, because you on the far-right hate the man no matter what he does. You've got people in here in this thread who clearly dislike him, but are still objective in their analysis. You on the other hand took the 5 things I said he did well, attacked all 5 of them, and totally ignored the 5 things I said that diminished his Presidency. You're not an objective broker here because you went straight onto the positives, as if to say he did nothing right, and didn't even acknowledge the negatives.
Giving him a C+ is not a great score. I was critical but fair to the man. You came me like I was an Obama lover, which signals to me you're just one of those right-wing bomb throwers who hate him no matter what, and attack even the people who call it down the middle. I hope you're being tongue in cheek with that Carter caption because calling him the worst President in our history is one of the most ridiculous things ever said.
So I apologize, but I feel I'm talking to a far-right extremist here. Not to worry though. In 2017, the far left is objectively more dangerous than the far right. But you are indeed mouthing far right positions like we should abolish the minimum wage entirely. The fact that you say that, and you might get a few posters here on a conservative-leaning forum to chime in with tacit support on that point doesn't impress me. That is not a mainstream point of view and almost nobody in public discourse feels that way. Of the 20% of the population who doesn't want to raise it, almost none of them want to eliminate it altogether.
And for the record, asking "what benefit" was it to kill Osama Bin Laden tells everyone everything they need to know about your point of view. Pointing out that we trained the Mujahadeen in the late 1980's is literally the most irrelevant talking point imaginable in a post 9/11 world.
Last edited by a moderator:
