Re: oh, it's called a sweeping generalization retard ...

On 8/2/2026 9:29 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 8/1/2026 7:38 PM, Dude wrote:
>> On 8/1/2026 3:01 PM, Tara wrote:
>>> On Aug 1, 2026 at 5:51:37 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/2026 22:15, Tara wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 1, 2026 at 2:40:32 PM EDT, "Wilson" <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/1/2026 2:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 13:40:13 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2026 1:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> u literally justify overriding free market principles with closed
>>>>>>>>> borders because u profit from it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seriously, capitalists have no principles. it's all up for 
>>>>>>>>> grabs when
>>>>>>>>> there is profit to be made!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it's fucking incredible you cried about how capitalism depends 
>>>>>>>>> on people
>>>>>>>>> acting ethically ... while here you are in just a thread over 
>>>>>>>>> shitting
>>>>>>>>> on basic principles of voluntary association because YOU 
>>>>>>>>> benefit from
>>>>>>>>> doing so!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> god ur such a delusionally confused basket case wilson and ur 
>>>>>>>>> wholly
>>>>>>>>> incapable of realizing it because the level of cognitive 
>>>>>>>>> dissonance in
>>>>>>>>> just how much a shithead u've been for long would be too much 
>>>>>>>>> for ur
>>>>>>>>> underdeveloped mind to handle,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My business actually profits more from open borders and no tariffs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open borders means more customers. Over 20% of my customers are 
>>>>>>>> immigrants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No tariffs means lower prices for my products.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I support restricted immigration and some tariffs because I 
>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>> benefits the young and low pay workers. And in the end that will 
>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>> the country at large even if it works against my short-term 
>>>>>>>> interests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to free association, that's been illegal in this country for 
>>>>>>>> 50 some
>>>>>>>> years. I'd support bringing it back as it empowers the individual
>>>>>>>> against the bureaucratic machine state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds yummy.  But it does not square with what you have been
>>>>>>> saying here for the last ten years that I have been noticing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never once said that my opposition to mass immigration was 
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> it benefits me. Same with tariffs. That was solely your 
>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me like you're hearing what you want to hear because 
>>>>>> it fits
>>>>>> your ideological biases. And because it's easier to deal with people
>>>>>> when you categorize them into boxes that have been predefined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Boom, into that box you go Wilson. And never shall you be allowed to
>>>>>> escape!"
>>>>>
>>>>> True. This is why your view, if you want to be understood, when 
>>>>> conversing
>>>>> with certain people, I think needs to be pretty well spelled out. 
>>>>> maybe over
>>>>> and over again.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work with people who are so sure of their mind reading
>>>> ability that they believe they know your mind, thoughts, words and 
>>>> deeds
>>>> better than you do yourself no matter how many times you tell them
>>>> otherwise. If they respected you one correction would suffice.
>>>
>>> Yeah!  Lets get some respect here eh. :)
>>
>>  From Nick?
> 
> It doesn't happen from Nick or from Noah. Both frame things in black and 
> white. While claiming that everyone else is so ideological.
> 
How is Nick going to respect a stranger in a chat room when he doesn't 
even respect himself? His responses are way past cringe, etering into 
diabolical. YMMV.