Central African Republic - Muslims murder 1,000 Christians

FredHayek wrote:
You are such an economic illiterate, also, illiterate illiterate, you don't understand that the massive wealth distribution you seek would fundamentally change the economy.
Want to see 90% taxes on the rich? The rich will leave. Want to raise wages? Businesses will have to close. It it no longer the 50's, we are competing with the developing world which is more than willing to undercut us on the costs of production. So unless you want to close the borders and hurt our export market, better get used to the new world order.

Everything you say has been proven wrong in history... The rich have been taxed at 90+% before, business will always line up to meet our consumer demands, and we've always competed with the third world...

Back in the day, when the middle class was created.........When China imported a pair of shoes that cost $20 to make in America, but only $3 to make in China, we charged them a $17 import tax on every single pair. At one time our entire government was funded by import taxes, now we fund the government, and fat cats move their factories to China and make ridiculous fortunes. Thats a transfer of wealth from us to them and it's done in a way that simpltons like you can't understand. A tranfer of wealth from the 97% (us), to the top 3%.

debates like this are precisely what gives license to murder in Central Africa ---- Americans are so busy debating the fine points of who-knows-what

---

while African militants are plinking away......

bailey bud wrote: debates like this are precisely what gives license to murder in Central Africa

:rofllol They are fighting over resources, AKA Money, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here in America. We'd be doing the same thing if there were no centralised federal government. States would war over oil, natural gas, minerals...etc etc etc

The negative effects of the lack of a central government are so obvious in developing countries that wherever the social order fails as in The Congo, it must have been due to bad religion, or the defect of having been born to an inferior race.
Ron Paul fans must reassure themselves that such things would never happen to white, Christian folk. They're immune from the Congo problem by virtue being of different stock and different values, you see

You make a good argument when you're not trolling.

towermonkey wrote: You make a good argument when you're not trolling.

Only when he's plagiarizing someone else's words...

The negative effects of the lack of a central government are so obvious in developing countries that wherever the social order fails as in Somalia, it must have been due to bad religion, or the defect of having been born to an inferior race.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013_12_01_archive.html

He just replaced Somalia with Congo. If it ever sounds like VL knows what he's talking about, he's just stealing the words from others. He's our very own Ward Churchill.

Are you kidding Rick? The message board is nothing but a Link War, and its been that way forever. DISCUSS THE TOPIC, TELL ME WHAT I"M POSTING IS WRONG AND WHY..ALL YOU GUYS DO IS ATTACK THE POSTER/SOURCE. YOU DISCUSS NOTHING

Yep, if the spelling and grammar are correct, it was stolen without source listed.

FredHayek wrote: But once again you think I want an extreme, going back to feudalism.

No country goes to feudalism on purpose? :rofllol

And whats just a little libertarianism Fred...? What does that even mean? Do you want a centralised federal government, or not? Cause you've been argueing everyday for not, for a few years now..Like I quoted and put into Italics the first time I posted it...

"The "Somalia" argument is a sore spot for libertarians. They either fall back on the old line of race and religious prejudice I outlined, or they claim that it isn't true Libertarianism, you see: it's anarchy. True Libertarians believe in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety; without those protections, they argue, anarchy ensues.

The only problem for libertarians is that they cannot point to even a single current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no concrete, real world examples, so they ply their arguments in a theoretical construct."

FredHayek wrote: Yep, if the spelling and grammar are correct, it was stolen without source listed.

How about this..When I use quotations..Its a quote..When I don't it's not.. lol

We all gather information from things we see, hear or read.. Thats how it works... lol When I was born I didn't know shit about 3rd world counties, I had to learn it somewhere. You get your knowledge from FOX News, which is all lies, and I try to disprove them.. Now go ahead and try to disprove my posts...Or you can just talk all day about me or Al Gore, or something else completely irrelivant

ok? lol

What are some things I would like to see? Department of Education? Defund it. Let the states keep their own money for education. Department of Energy? Another useless bureacracy? What do they do? Defund and use the money to pay down the debt. Military? How many branches do we need? Shut down the Marine Corps. Not much use for beach assaults these days. This does not shut down the federal government, but it does cut down on some of the excesses.