@AverageJoe1
Here are just SOME of Fuker Carlson Lies:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=tucker-carlson
@averagejoe1 saidTraditionally, a "socialist" is someone who calls for the end of capitalism and public ownership of the means of production, so "no".
@AverageJoe1
Here is a small test of leveling with debaters. Is AOC a socialist?
She, Bernie and others are what is usually called "social democrats" in Europe especially:
"In practice, social democratic regimes have presented a model of socially managed welfare capitalism, significantly differing from liberal capitalism through partial public ownership, economic control over the market, and policies promoting social equality. The principal means have been interventionist policies of economic management.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidFrom a link I already provided:
Then, what is the limit per year. And need we vet them? Because, we are not. But you care not, nor would socialist leaders, which we have now. They just want bodies, to dilute our society, become dependent, and thus live under socialism, dictated over by socialists.
Dictated. Arrest you getting this Sonhouse! Socialists are dictators. I know I know, I don’t like it either.
Oh, what is the limit per year? Why not? Should there be?
"On average, from 1820—when the records begin—to 1924, the country allowed an average annual rate of immigration equal to about 2/3 of a percent of its population. This would be the equivalent of nearly 2.2 million people today, triple the number of new legal permanent residents in 2020, and more than double any year in the last decade.
In several years before 1925, the rate hit 1.5 percent of the population, which today would be nearly 5 million immigrants.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20210428/112515/HHRG-117-JU01-Wstate-BierD-20210428.pdf Page 3
That suggests at least 1% to 1.5% would be historically sustainable or 3.5 million to 5,5 million but given we are a far richer and prosperous country now then a 100 years ago (thanks to progressive reforms of our economic system), the US could probably accept more and thus enjoy the benefits of immigration at a higher level.
@sonhouse saidIt’s over Sonhouse. You fellers did not answer for over a year. I win, it is like smelling napalm in the morning. Not looking at link. Marauder will,
@AverageJoe1
Here are just SOME of Fuker Carlson Lies:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=tucker-carlson
And I also kicked butt calling you out on your daughter having to swim with the baztird at the swim meet. No comment? I had a good Forum year!
@no1marauder saidMarauder the Bot, never a better moniker on the forum.
Traditionally, a "socialist" is someone who calls for the end of capitalism and public ownership of the means of production, so "no".
She, Bernie and others are what is usually called "social democrats" in Europe especially:
"In practice, social democratic regimes have presented a model of socially managed welfare capitalism, significantly differing from liberal ca ...[text shortened]... terventionist policies of economic management.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Hey, is everyone reading this? See how he answers (not) questions? Maybe someone else can answer?
@averagejoe1 said"No" isn't an answer?
Marauder the Bot, never a better moniker on the forum.
Hey, is everyone reading this? See how he answers (not) questions? Maybe someone else can answer?
Why do you keep playing this stupid game of pretending someone didn't answer a question when they clearly did?
BTW, you never answered any of my questions from Page 1, did you?
@no1marauder saidThe Bot clears it all up!
From a link I already provided:
"On average, from 1820—when the records begin—to 1924, the country allowed an average annual rate of immigration equal to about 2/3 of a percent of its population. This would be the equivalent of nearly 2.2 million people today, triple the number of new legal permanent residents in 2020, and more than double any year in the last decade. ...[text shortened]... em), the US could probably accept more and thus enjoy the benefits of immigration at a higher level.
I think he is implying that everything about the daily news is wrong? That the immigrants’ invasion is good news? We will all get rich with their contributions?
Is this for real? The Bot is the omnipotent? I hope he is right, so that everyone here will be rich and stop their bitching about people who make a lot of money. We will see that it is cool. Will the new mex laborers rise up against us rich folks, since their labor made us rich?
@averagejoe1 saidAre all your arguments basically "But right wing media has told me something different!"?
The Bot clears it all up!
I think he is implying that everything about the daily news is wrong? That the immigrants’ invasion is good news? We will all get rich with their contributions?
Is this for real? The Bot is the omnipotent? I hope he is right, so that everyone here will be rich and stop their bitching about people who make a lot of money. We will see tha ...[text shortened]... it is cool. Will the new mex laborers rise up against us rich folks, since their labor made us rich?
Why don't you deal with the facts I've presented?
@averagejoe1 saidThe Constitution does not say anything about immigration so that means it's ok. That's what you posted earlier.
The Bot clears it all up!
I think he is implying that everything about the daily news is wrong? That the immigrants’ invasion is good news? We will all get rich with their contributions?
Is this for real? The Bot is the omnipotent? I hope he is right, so that everyone here will be rich and stop their bitching about people who make a lot of money. We will see tha ...[text shortened]... it is cool. Will the new mex laborers rise up against us rich folks, since their labor made us rich?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidOh, I thought these were rhetorical questions .
Of course, I could follow that up with many questions like:
What do you think an "open border" means?
What do you think a "welfare state" means?
Do you think the United States has the first or is the second?
Could you give examples of a country with an "open border"?
Why do you think the concept of an "open border" is incompatible with the concept of a "wel ...[text shortened]... read already cited rather than simply falsely claiming I refused to answer a question I already did.
Sorry, so here are my answers, to your page 1 questions….
An open border is a place where a border used to be, but is no more.
A welfare state is one that provides support for those in need….i will leave it to you to define ‘those in need’.
There is no such thing as a country with an open border, because, to BE a country requires that you be bordered. You messin w me, Marauder?
I answered elsewhere why a country that gives away cheeseburgers will eventually run out of the burgers. You messin w me Marauder?
I didn’t answer these ridiculous questions because we all know the answers. So now you have the answers. And they are better than your thread. All of your stuff is too long, like Sonhouse. Have you ever said ‘yes or’no?
@no1marauder saidYeah, I saw this. What I gleaned, that I do NOT pull from right wing media, is from you. You give your usual link facts, as if they happened in an atmosphere like that of today.
From a link I already provided:
"On average, from 1820—when the records begin—to 1924, the country allowed an average annual rate of immigration equal to about 2/3 of a percent of its population. This would be the equivalent of nearly 2.2 million people today, triple the number of new legal permanent residents in 2020, and more than double any year in the last decade. ...[text shortened]... em), the US could probably accept more and thus enjoy the benefits of immigration at a higher level.
So, you yourself avoid the point that average Joe made earlier,,,,,they got off the boat and went to work. Nobody supported them. Your points are thus all negated. Those people then earned their way, you Marx acolytes are at the boats with water bottles, tears, and plane tickets. $500/day NYC hotel suites. Welfare lines. And see todays news of getting them into Medicare equivalent.
Take a shower. You got nuthin. Comparing 1890s to today.?..really, you disappoint. And I ain’t even that smart, it is right in front of you. You kid me about FOX, who the hellYOU listening to?
@athousandyoung saidWould someone PM this thousand character?
The Constitution does not say anything about immigration so that means it's ok. That's what you posted earlier.
@averagejoe1 saidAnd I already responded to that; the United States is better at providing for all the people in it now because of progressive reforms over the last 100 years. That those more than a 100 years ago were willing to countenance large levels of poverty and want and refuse to make social investments that lead to enhanced economic prosperity is no reason for us to repeat their stupid mistakes.
Yeah, I saw this. What I gleaned, that I do NOT pull from right wing media, is from you. You give your usual link facts, as if they happened in an atmosphere like that of today.
So, you yourself avoid the point that average Joe made earlier,,,,,they got off the boat and went to work. Nobody supported them. Your points are thus all negated. Those people then earned ...[text shortened]... ’t even that smart, it is right in front of you. You kid me about FOX, who the hellYOU listening to?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSo the United States wasn't a country for its first 100 years? It allowed almost unrestricted migration into the country meaning it had far more of an "open border" than the US does now - which you insist we do even as the Feds remove more than 2 million migrants in a year.
Oh, I thought these were rhetorical questions .
Sorry, so here are my answers, to your page 1 questions….
An open border is a place where a border used to be, but is no more.
A welfare state is one that provides support for those in need….i will leave it to you to define ‘those in need’.
There is no such thing as a country with an open border, because, to BE a cou ...[text shortened]... tter than your thread. All of your stuff is too long, like Sonhouse. Have you ever said ‘yes or’no?
Thanks for sharing such stupidity.