Invisible Man
Member

It doesn't matter what any other countries do. If China punishes its own citizens with tariffs and other restrictions on trade with Americans, that is no reason for our government to respond by punishing us with the same things. No he isn't. He explicitly condemns the views you are espousing here.

Given that you didn't know the first thing about the label until a couple days ago, I'd say your judgement on this matter is not very well informed.

Oh, is that all? Their ancestors may have belonged to many different ethnicities. So did the ancestors of the Irish, the Polish, the Italians, the Estonians, and every other ethnic group. But no, that is not what this context is. This context is about the currently existing ethnic group of African Americans.

We might not be able to have fully free trade, because we can’t control what China does. But that shouldn’t stop our government from keeping trade as free as possible by way of cutting or eliminating tariffs and other trade restrictions. Ron and Rand don’t just support hypothetical free trade in an imaginary world where other countries all support it too. They oppose tariffs and trade restrictions consistently in the real world, and regardless what any other countries do.

Kucinich is a lot like Trump. He is a big animal rights activist, so he would surely support Trump's ban of eating cat and dog meat, and would join Trump in condemning those who are trying to rescue Springfield, Ohio, from its feral cat epidemic by eating their way out of it. He is a big proponent of gun control. He supports single-payer healthcare. He is against free trade.

"European whites" are not an ethnicity. They are a diverse collection of different ethnicities. When Polish, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Estonians, or people from any other European ethnic group identify as, take pride in, and seek the betterment of that group they belong to, I generally don't see anybody having a problem with that. African Americans who are the descendants of American slaves are a distinct ethnic group with a shared history of that same sort. But grouping all European whites together, regardless of their ethnicities and backgrounds, calling this group a race, and then doing the things you said for that whole race, is not the same thing.

No doubt about that. But they are making policies based on that misunderstanding of economics that ruin peoples' lives, like banning so-called price gouging. The more people who know better just go along with that and pretend to agree, the more entrenched that misunderstanding and those destructive policies get.

+rep Careful, the Trumpers and leftwing vegan activists (but I repeat myself) think that animals shouldn't be killed for food, and if they must be, then it should be hidden away from public view inside tightly regulated facilities on corporate farms, so that we can go on pretending that the meat we buy at supermarkets (which should be the only meat anyone ever eats) doesn't come from killing animals. No one who needs food should try to be self sufficient. That's what welfare is for. And most importantly, no cats should be killed, not even feral ones, except by properly licensed government animal control experts.

This is another issue where our site's main moderator doesn't think we should try to educate people because a libertarian position is just too unpopular. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567734-Why-price-quot-gouging-quot-is-a-good-thing&p=7248952&viewfull=1#post7248952

What is the problem here?

It was not a deliberate deception. The OP was quoting from an article by Lew Rockwell in which Rockwell used the term "Old Right" with its normal meaning, intended for an audience who were assumed to know exactly what group of people he was talking about. Nobody was supposed to infer anything about the history of the vocabulary of right versus left in politics.

In any given year there's a good chance that a hurricane will happen in October. https://www.weather.gov/mob/tropical_events

I did not hear her use the word "Jews" once in that clip.

Regardless what you think of the term, it's an existing term that has a meaning, and the OP used it in its normal way. It's also a term that is closely related to the movement this whole website is based on, and that has historically been used here a lot without anybody having a problem with it. You apparently didn't know what the Old Right was, and disputed the OP on the basis of that misunderstanding on your part. And now you want to complain about the existence of the term itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)

Old Right is an early-to-mid-20th century movement.

The OP cited examples of Old Right figures who opposed tariffs. I don't doubt that you can find a counterexample or two. But if so, how would that not be just as much cherry picking on your part?

Tariffs should be voluntary. Anybody who supports tariffs should send extra money to the federal government based on however much stuff they buy from other countries, and as for why the rest of us don't do that, they should mind their own business.

..

I think it's the opposite of what you say. It may have had some steam among a limited subset of the population before that debate. And if so, that was because of the second part of what I said, Trumpers bringing it up just because it served the purpose of being handy anti-immigration propaganda. But it didn't blow up until Trump brought it up in the debate. I had never heard of the story, and neither had most other people.

Am I wrong? Is the bolded part something you disagree with? If so, I'd love to hear whatever argument you can come up with for your position. Hopefully something better than, "because Sarah McLachlan said so."

It's an issue that Trumpers suddenly decided to care about because Trump told them to, and it proved to be handy for anti-immigration propaganda.

On behalf of whites, please stop calling the rest of us your people. We aren't.

That is not a flaw. If the majority of people are wrong about something, we should present arguments to change their minds, not just go along with them because they're the majority. Much less should we suddenly decide to jump on the bandwagon just because Trump did. And if that's not what's happening here, then please find all the threads over the years where anybody in this forum ever thought that other people eating feral cats, dogs, or geese, was an issue of any importance. Notably, you haven't even tried to argue that anything I've said is even wrong. Your position seems to be essentially, "Yes, it's true that the lives of the people of Springfield have been improved by the sudden decrease of the feral cat population. But Sarah McLauchlan is against eating cat meat, so it would be dumb of us not to pretend she's right."

That is the way it looks.

Then let's talk about that. Instead of this non-issue of people eating cats.

Then what is your point? If it's not about government intervening, what's the issue here? If people aren't violating the rights of other people, mind your own business and let them be.

No. My argument is that it's none of the government's business. Listen to the argument you're using here. Any time you see something that you don't think is absolutely and universally right, you think the government should intervene. And you're a mod here.

You could have fooled me. I'm not ignoring public opinion, and I'm also not running for office. But when it comes to saying what's true or false, or right or wrong, I don't hold my finger up to the wind and let the Lilith Fair crowd tell me what the answer is. If my view is a minority view, then I'd rather do my best to change minds than just change my view so that I could be in the majority, like what you apparently do.

Be that as it may, that doesn't really support Dannnnnnno's claim.