Open Borders Day

[crowded]

Their opposition to unions. ???



This was your question:

"If not having open borders is racist then tell me which countries aren't racists (ie they allow free inflows of people)?"

So the question has a conditional clause, which is a position you are ascribing to me despite my not having expressed it (and not believing it). And now you are unconvincingly playing dumb about it.

What opposition to unions? Oh, that "if you don't support it that means you're against it" logic failure that you subscribe to?

Conditional clauses are lies now? Whatever dude. How about you just explain what you were saying since right now it looks like you said something really stupid, got called out on it and are now doing the side-step dance by throwing out a really poor attempt at misdirection. Go ahead, explain the connection between immigration, Libertarians and white nationalism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Conditional clauses are lies now? Whatever dude.

You just can't help yourself, can you? LOL!

You're saying, essentially, "given that you believe X, blah blah blah?" The lie is saying that I believe X when I have stated no such thing. Get it now? Obviously (*sigh*) I wasn't saying that all conditional clauses are lies. Yours was, however.

How about you just explain what you were saying since right now it looks like you said something really stupid, got called out on it and are now doing the side-step dance by throwing out a really poor attempt at misdirection. Go ahead, explain the connection between immigration, Libertarians and white nationalism.

My comment was very straight-forward.

"No, it was a comment on another example of libertarians throwing their alleged values aside when it comes to class-warfare/white nationalist issues."

The two main sources of right-wing libertarian ideology in America are defenders of the Confederacy and business lobbyists, right? Libertarianism provides more palatable rationalizations for holding their positions than what they had previously. I'm just noting that whenever the stated ideals of libertarianism run up against the interests of one or both of those groups, large numbers of people who profess libertarian values abandon their libertarianism, usually with a poor rationalization attached (like ben's comical "I support free movement of workers but only on the impossible--without eliminating democracy--condition that the social safety net is dissolved").

 

[ben236]

like ben's comical "I support free movement of workers but only on the impossible--without eliminating democracy--condition that the social safety net is dissolved".

Moron, I believe that illegals should not have access to welfare. I wasn't referring to the social safety net as a whole. If you want to show up to work, fine. I just don't believe you should be rewarded with a welfare check and food stamps just for stepping over the border.

 

[crowded]

You just can't help yourself, can you? LOL!

You're saying, essentially, "given that you believe X, blah blah blah?" The lie is saying that I believe X when I have stated no such thing. Get it now? Obviously (*sigh*) I wasn't saying that all conditional clauses are lies. Yours was, however.

Can't help what? Pointing out your logic skills are lacking? That's not a complex question because I phrased it in such a way that I'm looking to further clarify both points rather than make an assertion. You see the difference between "when did you stop beating your wife?" and "If blah blah, then blah blah?"? There's probably a MOOC out there for logic that you can take. You seem to have the time on your hands.

My comment was very straight-forward.

"No, it was a comment on another example of libertarians throwing their alleged values aside when it comes to class-warfare/white nationalist issues."

The two main sources of right-wing libertarian ideology in America are defenders of the Confederacy and business lobbyists, right? Libertarianism provides more palatable rationalizations for holding their positions than what they had previously. I'm just noting that whenever the stated ideals of libertarianism run up against the interests of one or both of those groups, large numbers of people who profess libertarian values abandon their libertarianism, usually with a poor rationalization attached (like ben's comical "I support free movement of workers but only on the impossible--without eliminating democracy--condition that the social safety net is dissolved").

So "right-wing" is your euphemism for racist?

This still sounds like you're saying that being against open borders is racist. If you're not, and this thread is about open borders, then why are you off on some left field tangent about racism? What's your point?

a. racists become libertarians
b. libertarians are racist
c. ???

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can't help what? Pointing out your logic skills are lacking?

You can't help deliberately misinterpreting what is written. First you did it with regard to my comments on "libertarian" opposition to immigration, and then, while we were still discussing that, you did it with regard to my pointing out where your other misinterpretation was.

That's not a complex question because I phrased it in such a way that I'm looking to further clarify both points rather than make an assertion.

You just tried to slip in a deliberate misreading of my point, because you found the point I actually made to be convincing logically, but you remained emotionally unconvinced.

So "right-wing" is your euphemism for racist?

It's like you have some kind of disorder.

This still sounds like you're saying that being against open borders is racist. If you're not, and this thread is about open borders, then why are you off on some left field tangent about racism? What's your point?

I'm saying that right-wing libertarian's positions just happen to be exactly the same as either white nationalists' or business lobbyists' (depending on the strain), though they give different justifications for their positions. On issues where their stated ideology puts them against those two groups, most of them will invariably side against "libertarianism." It's an interesting phenomenon.

 

[crowded]

You can't help deliberately misinterpreted what is written. First you did it with regard to my comments on "libertarian" opposition to immigration, and then, while we were still discussing that, you did it with regard to my pointing out where your other misinterpretation was.



You just tried to slip in a deliberate misreading of my point, because you found the point I actually made to be convincing logically, but you remained emotionally unconvinced.



It's like you have some kind of disorder.



I'm saying that right-wing libertarian's positions just happen to be exactly the same as either white nationalists' or business lobbyists' (depending on the strain), though they give different justifications for their positions. On issues where their stated ideology puts them against those two groups, most of them will invariably side against "libertarianism." It's an interesting phenomenon.

I didn't deliberately misrepresent shit. I merely asked you a couple questions based on my understanding of the words you typed. You're either stunted when it comes to logic or you're a liar. I'm going with liar. We just saw you do it with asserting the Libertarian position is anti-union when the clearly stated platform of the main Libertarian party says differently.

You imply that L's are against open borders out of white nationalism and then contradict yourself by denying that you're saying opposing open borders is racist. Is opposing open borders racist? You said "no" earlier. If that's the case then what's your point? Just musing on the similarities for no reason whatsoever? lol. You can't even come up with good examples to support your generalizations so it's not surprising you won't stand behind your implications.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didn't deliberately misrepresent shit.

The only other possibility is that you're a complete idiot.

You imply that L's are against open borders out of white nationalism and then contradict yourself by denying that you're saying opposing open borders is racist. Is opposing open borders racist? You said "no" earlier. If that's the case then what's your point? Just musing on the similarities for no reason whatsoever? lol. You can't even come up with good examples to support your generalizations so it's not surprising you won't stand behind your implications.

Well, this is evidence against you deliberately misrepresenting my positions, I guess.

As I said, right-wing libertarian positions just happen to line up perfectly with those of either business lobbyists or white nationalists, even though they give different reasons for holding those positions. On the few issues where you might expect a difference, most libertarians tend to abandon their libertarianism. I find that interesting; you'd prefer that people not notice. OK. I think everyone reading gets it. Move on or move forward.

 

[Calmete]

One thing for sure. Should the things jack said in this thread be switched from white to black people.... something would have been done about it long ago.

 

[Jack V Savage]

One thing for sure. Should the things jack said in this thread be switched from white to black people.... something would have been done about it long ago.

Like what? Quote something.

 

[crowded]

The only other possibility is that you're a complete idiot.

Yeah, that's it.

Well, this is evidence against you deliberately misrepresenting my positions, I guess.

As I said, right-wing libertarian positions just happen to line up perfectly with those of either business lobbyists or white nationalists, even though they give different reasons for holding those positions. On the few issues where you might expect a difference, most libertarians tend to abandon their libertarianism. I find that interesting; you'd prefer that people not notice. OK. I think everyone reading gets it. Move on or move forward.

First, you only seem to have one issue that fits your agenda so that looks like another fallacy on your part (hasty generalization). Second, if you're not implying that self-proclaimed Libertarians are being racist by opposing open borders then your musing has what point? If you don't believe that opposing open borders is racist then what you call "interesting" must not have any value. Otherwise no rational person would be interjecting racism into the discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, that's it.

Can you explain how you can so consistently misunderstand such simple sentences?

First, you only seem to have one issue that fits your agenda so that looks like another fallacy on your part (hasty generalization).

I have no agenda, and I gave you two examples (though, of course, you're taking libertarian spin as Gospel). There are more.

Second, if you're not implying that self-proclaimed Libertarians are being racist by opposing open borders then your musing has what point? If you don't believe that opposing open borders is racist then what you call "interesting" must not have any value. Otherwise no rational person would be interjecting racism into the discussion.

My point is that a lot of libertarianism is just used as a cover. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Paul and white nationalists agree about the Civil Rights Act (he, of course, doesn't support a return to Jim Crow--he has different reasons), MLK (he was a philanderer), "states rights", immigration, welfare, etc. And it's just a coincidence that the Pauls keep ending up with these unsavory connections. Could be that they're just dupes. Neither is particularly bright, but on the other hand, Rand surely knew that his media director and co-author was a white nationalist, right? Is that also a coincidence?

 

[James Keith]

My point is that a lot of libertarianism is just used as a cover. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Paul and white nationalists agree about the Civil Rights Act (he, of course, doesn't support a return to Jim Crow--he has different reasons), MLK (he was a philanderer), "states rights", immigration, welfare, etc. And it's just a coincidence that the Paul's keep ending up with these unsavory connections. Could be that they're just dupes. Neither is particularly bright, but on the other hand, Rand surely knew that his media director and co-author was a white nationalist, right? Is that also a coincidence?

Much like the long list of "coincidental" similarities we were just discussing you liberals share with socialists.

Or how Obama hung out with socialists, not to mention terrorists and anti-american pastors.

It's funny how you will argue for pages that your views are not just about calling everyone racist. Then when pressed on what other exlanations you have for others' views if not racism, you call it racism.

 

[crowded]

Can you explain how you can so consistently misunderstand such simple sentences?

When people pull shit out of their ass and then talk out both sides of their mouth I do tend to fall behind. That's a flaw for sure. Thanks for pointing it out. Do you feel superior enough now to think that nobody see's your bullshit?

I have no agenda, and I gave you two examples (though, of course, you're taking libertarian spin as Gospel). There are more.

You have it backwards. You have an agenda with no examples. What are the two? The union thing (which you were clearly lying about) and this connection to racism that you muse over yet deny any implications of the connection you're trying to make? If you have something that isn't easily disproved or simply a product of your imagination you sure are acting like it's top secret. Just lay your cards on the table. I'm sure everyone will be impressed, once we figure out what your point is. :wink:

My point is that a lot of libertarianism is just used as a cover.

So you're saying that opposing open borders is racist? If not, then it's a cheap ploy to pretend like the motives you ascribe have any value to legitimate discussion.

It's hard not to notice that with you everything is either about money or some racist conspiracy. You're not too far off of what you consider IDL to be. I've never been to a meeting where we talk about keeping other people down. Same as elite bankers and the types never get together to talk about how to increase resources and control. I mean, cause only kooks think like that. Maybe you're just shitting on the poor folks by suggesting that only the less fortunate conspire to jockey for position. I'm sure some more simple sentences from you will clear that right up. But being a dumb shit (I forget your words) and all maybe we can get some other brainiac to translate your tap dance into something I can understand because the more you explain the less you seem to make sense. :icon_sad:

 

[Crocswithsocks]

I have no agenda

haha!

 

[Jack V Savage]

When people pull shit out of their ass and then talk out both sides of their mouth I do tend to fall behind. That's a flaw for sure. Thanks for pointing it out. Do you feel superior enough now to think that nobody see's your bullshit?

Annnd you're doing it again. It almost seems like you're putting me on here.

You have it backwards. You have an agenda with no examples. What are the two? The union thing (which you were clearly lying about) and this connection to racism that you muse over yet deny any implications of the connection you're trying to make?

Unions and immigration are two subjects where a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" abandon their alleged principles to go with their affinity groups.

If you have something that isn't easily disproved or simply a product of your imagination you sure are acting like it's top secret. Just lay your cards on the table. I'm sure everyone will be impressed, once we figure out what your point is. :wink:

I'm not sure how I can explain this in a way that you can understand (see Posts 71, 67 and 65, among others). It would help if you weren't actively trying to misunderstand, though.

So you're saying that opposing open borders is racist? If not, then it's a cheap ploy to pretend like the motives you ascribe have any value to legitimate discussion.

Racism is an ideology that has race as a significant biological category and ranks races along some kind of hierarchy. Nothing to do with open borders. Obviously white nationalists are a significant portion of the right-wing libertarian base, though, right? And that is apparent when you have issues that pit right-wing libertarianism against the interests of white nationalists, you see a lot of "libertarians" abandoning libertarianism with some thin rationalization. So you can add this post to the list (as I said, move on or move forward--we're totally going around in circles here, though it's kind of stunning that after I've repeated my very clear point so many times, you're still making comments like that).

It's hard not to notice that with you everything is either about money or some racist conspiracy. You're not too far off of what you consider IDL to be.

LOL! You're turning into a walking caricature of a brain-washed libertarian.

 

[sexcellent]

oh man, jackie boy is reverting back to his highschool debate tactics again

 

[Jack V Savage]

oh man, jackie boy is reverting back to his highschool debate tactics again

Aren't you the hack who wrote this?:

i think people against libertarianism are just afraid of losing something that the government is already giving them. i understand why simple-minded people would feel that way.

It's not like you're capable of discussing issues rationally with someone who doesn't agree with you about libertarianism. And you pretty much just follow me around and cheer on people who disagree with me.

 

[sexcellent]

Aren't you the hack who wrote this?:



It's not like you're capable of discussing issues rationally with someone who doesn't agree with you about libertarianism. And you pretty much just follow me around and cheer on people who disagree with me.

now he's using his database of old posts. he must be getting desperate.

i bet it's difficult having both OCD and schizophrenia

hey wacko jacko would you like me to put each sentence into a new paragraph so that you can quote each one separately?

 

[Jack V Savage]

now he's using his database of old posts. he must be getting desperate.

i bet it's difficult having both OCD and schizophrenia

hey wacko jacko would you like me to put each sentence into a new paragraph so that you can quote each one separately?

Instead of getting mad, you should probably re-evaluate your thinking here. Imagine if someone you didn't agree with posted something like that. What would you think? Would you take their cheerleading seriously?

 

[sexcellent]

Instead of getting mad, you should probably re-evaluate your thinking here. Imagine if someone you didn't agree with posted something like that. What would you think? Would you take their cheerleading seriously?

i don't think i'd be as butthurt as you are. it's kinda hard to take you seriously when you are so creepy.

maybe if you took the creepiness down a notch you might gain some genuine respect and credibility around here. given your unhealthy obsession with the war room, that must be what you're after, right?