|
|
#1
04-07-2005, 03:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
When social democrats can\'t contain their socialism anymore...
Matthew Yglesias proves my belief that most social democrats are in actuality closet collectivists paying lip service to "free markets" and deep down inside they just want to nationalize everything and redistribute income evenly across the board, even across nations.
First: tax everything! Seriously, that's his plan. Second: redistribute and rejoice! He says: "Creating a property-rights system that encourages investment and growth by permitting large profits and inequalities seems like an excellent idea when boosting real wages is a major priority. It does seem, however, that a point comes when we can do more good by redistributing the pie we already have than by baking more pie. I don't think we're at that point yet," Once again supporting my position that most democrats don't know one damn thing about even basic economics. "I don't think we're at that point yet"???? (emphasis mine) Good god, Mr. Yglesias. You don't think at all, apparently. Boy I can't wait til we get to the point where the social democrats think it's economically sound to redistribute income evenly across the world! Oh happy day. I'm torn by this. On one hand I'm glad to see such candor. Finally one of the fellow travellers admits it! But I really am sorry to see this kind of candor because I was holding out some hope that the democrats would abandon their silly socialist nonsense and be the fiscally responsible party in 2006 that promises to reduce spending, while maintaining their new-found support for federalism and civil rights.... oh well. It appears I was right. They are closet socialists whose love for the state knows no bounds.... natedogg 
|
|
#2
04-07-2005, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And no $200 either
I have not read the articles. I did not check your links. Hell, I do not even know who that guy Yglesias is! (I trust he's not the Spanish singer/smoothie...)
But you realize what you're doing, right? You're taking the political convictions of a person who claims he is a social democrat and you use those convictions to show that all social democrats[/i] are wrong! If a serial killer says to the police he voted Democrat, is that supposed to tell you something about Democrats? (Or serial killers?) You realize that calling yourself a social democrat does not in itself make you one, right? You realize that drawing conclusions about a population from a sample of one is an elementary statistical fallacy, right? You realize that what you just did shows your bias more than anything else, right? You realize that you have to use stronger examples (samples) than that to make a point, right? Start again.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
