Exactly, and that's what I am saying is wrong! Do you get me or not? Spidergoat can donate and do whatever he wants without forcing me to participate, so why does he want to force me to participate?
It's not that what you're saying is wrong, it's that you're making all the wrong arguments to support your point, and that your main argument, itself, is inconsistent. Let me point out how you're being an idiot. Spidergoat feels that nationalization of natural resources (instead of privatization) is something that is good. As a libertarian/free-market capitalist, you no doubt disagree with this. You SHOULD point out the places where government control over natural resources has crippled the economy---for example, Iran is sitting on a sea of oil, but cannot really extract it. They haven't encouraged foreign investment (indeed, they've discouraged it) so the infrastructure is falling apart. Other countries, like Venezuela, will suffer the same fate as foreign oil countries not willing to deal with an instable/insane dictator pull out of the country. Spidergoat feels that the financial markets should be more tightly regulated. You (no doubt) disagree with this. You should point out that Ireland's boom in investment came only after they reduced the corporate tax and set the capital gains tax to zero, leading to a huge investments from companies eager to do business in the EU but not willing to put up with their socialist tax system. You should point out that the low capital gains tax in America under the last Bush administration, coupled with the ability that banks had to create credit derivative swaps (which is about to be revoked, if the financial overhaul bill passes) made mortgages cheap enough for most people to afford. Instead of rebutting his points, you continue to talk past him and make an ass out of yourself. I'll continue. Spidergoat has defined his postion, and even rebutted your argument: You continue to argue in your moronic vein: I assume you don't realize how imbecilic your point is, or even that your two positions apparently don't contradict each other. You want all the hippies to go off by themselves and form some socialist commune. Spidergoat says that's exactly how it should work. We call that place Western Europe. But that's not good enough for you---not only should all the socialists go and magically create a new country, you claim that only a 100% participation rate is acceptable. Is America 100% democratic? Don't you think the poor dreadlocked, pot head, stinking bastards in the American Communist Party are feeling a bit repressed? By extension of your logic, our government is immoral, which surely you don't agree with---this is what we call an inconsistent argument. You want to establish that socialism, in and of itself, is somehow immoral, and that forced participation in such a system is wrong. What you've actually established is that you aren't reading any posts except your own. You've established that you don't understand how democracy works (majority rule, minority protection). And you've established that you can't construct a consistent argument. Go back to your Andrew Wilkow podcasts.
Ben, considering how rude you are, I think I'm going to add you to my ignore list. I don't argue with people who call me an idiot, and you are the one who is consistently missing my point. Edit: I suppose I can't ignore admins. Well, I'm ignoring you nonetheless.
Rude he was overwhelming polite to you when most people would have just called you a jackass. yeah that show them. ignoring someone who tried to make it so you could better push your point. sure you do. you argue with me and I call you an idiot all the time. that would be difficult since you really don't have mush in the way of a point. mindlessly and fanaticly repeating parts of an ideology is not making a point.
