kraychik

Kerry deserved those attacks, he betrayed his fellow soldiers and became a wilful propagandist for the enemy.

I highlighted the part I agree with the most. The disadvantage the leftists have, of course, is that they are arguing a lie. The Marxist narrative of eternal class struggle (parroted by Argus, cybercoma, and bleeding heart to name a few) is unsupportable, so they're at a distinct disadvantage. So what do they do? Well, they do all they can. Tell me I'm clueless, I don't understand ideology, conservatism, Marxism, economics, and then accuse me of being "inflammatory" or a troll. I'm used to this desperation from the left. I thrive on it.

You're actually the one that wants to use the power of the government to encroach on the economy to benefit the few against the many. You're the one telling us that a certain category of worker should be protected at the expense of everyone else. In other words, in order to protect certain types of jobs that are becoming unjustifiable due to more efficient options, such as outsourcing to cheaper labour markets or technological innovation, you want to punish the entire market by driving up costs through government prohibition on these measures. You whine about "the worker" whose job is at risk due to one reason or another, and want to inflict higher prices one everyone else as a consequence of that whining. Macroeconomics is on my side, not yours. Which workers? Like I said you want to punish everyone in order to protect a select group whose jobs are at risk due to insufficiencies. Your entire Marxist narrative about class struggle (owners vs. workers, bourgeois vs. proletariat, however you want to phrase it) is entirely false. The broader swathe of society is served by allowing people to associate freely and determine how they conduct their transactions. You want to protect certain workers, for example automobile manufacturing labourers in Ottawa, while punishing the rest of the workers in other industries with higher prices on cars. You're picking and choosing losers, rather than allowing the market to operate organically. Although I find it entertaining to dismantle the ignorant narratives of the economic illiterates (like yourself, cybercoma, bleeding heart, and other leftists), it is combined with an ample mount of depression over the pervasiveness of this ignorance in our societies. What I'm talking about is actually high-school level economics. For all you know, I may be a high-school dropout on welfare. I agree with the first sentence, but your definition of "certain economic interests" and the type of regulation that should be implemented on business is rooted in Marxism. As you've already demonstrated many times in this thread, your entire attitude towards economics isn't grounded in any basic understanding of free market economics, but rather a Marxist view of an eternal struggle between the haves and the have-nots. This narrative if your foundation for desiring broad interventions from the government into the economy, abrogating individual economic freedom It's not relevant when you think class warfare began, what is relevant is that you and other leftists subscribe to this false narrative of economics, history, and politics. A consequence of this foundation of your worldview is that you believe the "elite media" serves the interests of "the capitalist class". This is the false narrative of socialists like bleeding heart, and you're right in the boat with him. Absurd. The richest Americans pay more taxes than the richest Canadians. America's tax system is more progressive than Canada's, actually. In layman's terms, that means that the top whatever-percent (let's say ten percent, for fun) pay a bigger portion of total tax revenues collected by the government than their equivalents in Canada. "Tax loopholes for the rich" is a leftist talking point which is the opposite of the truth, especially considering that over one half of Americans pay no income tax, whatsoever. It is the lower income earners that have no skin in the game, but according to your fantasies, it's the rich that are getting away with not shouldering their loads. Now I myself have decried the fact that so many don't pay taxes on the other end of the spectrum as well. That is do to well-intentioned (but often counter-productive) liberal social engineering. Nevertheless, the fixation of the Republican Party (bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations) has, for the last twenty five years, been lowering taxes for the rich. And statistics have shown this has resulted in a growing income inequality and a plummeting social mobility. Again, this is you revealing your Marxist narrative. The owner-class against the worker-class. It's not even worth addressing at this point as I've completely destroyed your "economic" argumentation. Ironically, of course, the Democratic party receives the largest share of money from the biggest "heavy hitters" according to opensecrets.org. Don't let reality get in the way of your leftist narrative of the Republican party being the party of the evil greedy and exploitative bourgeois. Of course you are in favour of higher taxation, you're a leftist. You want more economic intervention from the government. That was obvious a long time ago.

Furthermore, the list of people who've been banned, from what I can see, are overwhelmingly right-of-centre. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about this forum, and is entirely compatible with endless other experiences I've had in my life. It's just another example of the left's contempt for the concept of open and honest exchange. Everywhere one looks, one can see the contempt that the left has for freedom of speech and expression.

I'm not being persecuted. I rather enjoy having leftists calling for me to be censored and banned. It exposes them for who and what they are: terrified of the truth and unable to address it with their false political and historical illusions. If communists and socialists aren't distressed by my presence, I'm doing something wrong.

You've taken much more than "bits and pieces" from communism when you talk about economics. Thankfully for the forum, and unfortunately for the leftists, I am here to dismantle your false narrative.

Considering Nazism is a far-leftist ideology, of course I am to the right of it.

It's about statism, and the contemporary left (a group of whom you are card-carrying member) is far more aligned with statism than today's conservatives. The bottom line is that the Nazi platform has fare more in common with your ideology, and virtually nothing in common with our ideology. The narrative of the Nazis being on the "far-right" serves the interests of statist leftists like you in order to fool people into thinking that there is a counterweight on our side of the ideological spectrum to communism. I've explained this over and over again. We are the immune system of society preventing tyranny, whereas you represent the vulnerable parts of the organism, if not the disease or virus itself in some circumstances.

I don't have the time or patience to articulate it at the moment, but rest assured, you are not a conservative. You don't know the first thing about the Tea Party, that much is clear after you described them as Christian "extremists" and basically echoed the absurd narrative from Michael Hardner equating them to the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't let that stop you from pretending to know what the Tea Party stands for, however, while quoting fake conservative establishment-Republicans like Jeb Bush who make idiotic comments about Reagan.

This is a a strawman argument and false choice. You're dishonestly asserting that there are two options: your way or anarchy. You are also dishonestly attributing an anarchist position to me, which is fine, I expect this sort of dishonesty from leftists. There is a huge range between a much more free market than we currently have an pure anarchy. Your (false) argument about the loss of certain jobs as a result of increased efficiency can be made against everything that improves our lives. Personal computers displaced typewriters, accounting software displacing bookkeepers and accountants, or ATMs replacing bank tellers. It is a pathetic argument, and unfortunately seems to be more and more common as economic illiteracy continues to grow due to the public education system. We're not talking about complicated things here, and we can see quite a few people in this very thread don't grasp these elementary concepts. It's depressing. For the record, I recognised that there is no pure free market many, many, many moons ago. I knew this before high school.

The Soviet Union was in the business of creating jobs. So is North Korea. Cuba as well. On a serious note, if you understood economics, you wouldn't parrot this leftist rhetoric. Free markets create more jobs and wealth than any other economic system. Of course, leftists like yourself aren't concerned with prosperity, you're concerned with a warped perception of equality (of result). Leftists think they can remove failure and hardship from life through benevolent masterminds directing our societies.

He didn't sign any deals. If you'd actually read the first post you'd know this to be true. I will repost it for your benefit (I also highlighter the important stuff for your convenience):

I love this, you come in here with a one-liner post that contributes nothing, and tell others not to talk to me. I, of course, contribute high-quality posts that deal with core issues. You, on the other hand, provide forgettable one-liner posts that make no difference to any thread you participate in. Your desire to censor me (that's three leftists now that want me censored, exposing the contempt the left has for freedom of speech) tells us everything we need to know about you. You fear actually engaging me, and fear that others might actually read my posts and learn something.

Actually, I completely destroyed Argus' false arguments. And yes, Obama certainly subscribes to many Marxist principles. He plays the class warfare game regularly, and parrots this false narrative of competing interests between two classes, the capitalists the rich and the proletariat "ordinary Americans", in the context of a zero sum game. This is pure, unadulterated, not-from-concentrate Marxism. You might as well be honest about it.

Well said. He sounds like a communist. I am in full agreement with this post.

What a surprise, a socialist loves Argus' nonsensical views of the economy. I saw right through him when I first encountered him, and accurately described him as what he was: a leftist.

Who determines these social best interests? You and other leftist philosopher kings? The examples provided are not examples of the free market "hurting society". There is a tangible benefit to many people when the operational costs of business are reduced, either through automation (for example, ATMs replacing bank tellers or self-scanning machines replacing cashiers at grocery stores) or outsourcing overseas (for example, textile manufacturing primarily being done in Asia due to lower labour costs). This benefit is ignored by those on the left like yourself, or perhaps you don't even know what the benefit it. The costs of goods and services are reduced. The best example in modern times is Walmart, which has been the single strongest deflationary force in North America in recent years. Ironically, the very people at the bottom of the financial ladder who leftists like yourself claim to stand for are actually stood upon by you and your fellow-minded socialists and communists. When the costs of goods and services are artificially increased via leftists policies that you, Argus, BC_Chick, and bleeding heart are all clearly in favour of, who bears the brunt of this? Not the reviled rich, but the virtuous poor. So when you call for government intrusions that force business to "save jobs", you're driving up costs, making everything more expensive. Your same nonsensical argument which is essentially an attack on free markets can be made to oppose the development of the wheel, which certainly put certain labourers out of business, in your mind. The sad truth is that the policies of government intervention into correcting the market crushes the poor, while you pretend to speak in their own best interests. Argus' entire narrative was Marxist in origin, pitting one class against another as if the economic interests of all people aren't harmonised at the broad level. As usual, the benevolent leftists want the collective wisdom of millions of people making decisions every second of every day in their own best interests to be improved by economic illiterates virtuous masterminds. I have to admit one last thing. While I do find it entertaining to come into internet discussion forums and completely destroy leftist argumentation grounded in complete economic ignorance, it does depress me as well. The sad fact is that basic economics isn't compulsory anymore in a public education. Of course this is by design, in order to keep ordinary folks ignorant, but it does depress me. Especially considering that you folks vote.

Exactly, because believing in free markets and individual sovereignty is totally Nazi-like. The inconvenient truth is, however, that your ideological leanings are far more compatible with Nazism than mine. This is really a teachable moment.

I read through the review of yours that's semi-referenced by this thread, and although I agree that We Need To Talk About Kevin is a good and interesting movie, August1991 is totally on-point when he describes your review as pretentious. That's exactly what it is.

I'm not forgetting it (mind you I wasn't really there at the time, of course), but that's a much different type of multiculturalism than official "multiculturalism policy" as it exists today. Of course culture is an inherently amorphous concept that ebbs and flows over time, and it's difficult to determine a role for government to play in its preservation and/or development. What we have being practised today, however, is an absolute perversion and amounts to what the infamous Anders Breivik accurately described as "cultural Marxism".

That type of behaviour is typical of leftists, actually. It is funny, however, when the ridiculous rules and regulations imposed by leftists with the support of leftist is used against leftists. That is ironic justice.

God bless the communists like cybercoma who are the benevolent directors of our economy! Oh, woe is me, as I do not have a mastermid like cybercome directing my economic and social decisions for me in my own best interest! How much do you charge for your economic guidance, cybercoma?

Israel is obviously not "despicable" enough, considering the terrorism and intransigence continues.

Israel is too subservient to its American masters, it seems.

Jeb Bush is like you, a fake conservative who is essentially a leftist to the core. Here is Mark Levin ripping Jeb Bush apart for several of his recent statements that were too stupid not to ignore, this includes his recent absurd comment about Reagan's incompatibility with the Tea Party, when in fact the Tea Party and Reagan were compatible in the most profound ways. Although this is long, Mark Levin tore apart Jeb Bush's revisionism of what Reagan represented in this episode. Bush's entire career is a function of political nepotism. Levin also address the fake conservatism of George Sr. and Jr.