1: Whether they add value or not is not something you have the right to dictate.  If it is something serious enough to warrant moderator action, it is up to the moderators to make such a call.
2: That being said, there is one person you have 100% control over the actions of.  You.  So regardless of what you see as someone else causing a violation, you are still 100% responsible for your actions.  By your own admission, your posts add absolutely nothing to the forum.  Thus, you've just admitted outright that what you're doing, at best, is no better than the very thing you are criticizing.  TL;DR version: hypocrite.
3: There is something seriously wrong with this forum when the war hawk right-wing nutjob has to tell the left socialist "two wrongs don't make a right." 

Kemp, it may be a strawman argument, but whether or not it's a strawman argument is a political debate to be had.  i.e., if I were to enforce the rules, it would be ruling on an issue by deciding a pre-conceived conclusion on the political content of how a debate turned out.  It would be no different than if I were to say posts violated the "must have evidence to back up your claims" rule because a post used only Fox News, or if I called global warming skepticism posts trolling.  Even if I know beyond a doubt that you're right on this, shutting down the discussion because I know what the answer will be would be precedent for some of the worst moderation that could come to this forum.

Additionally, in this case, assuming a strawman fallacy is in effect here, it would just be much more valuable to let the debate evolve and show the fallacy, rather than erasing it, because it would mean you would have the evidence of the prior discussion to help support your argument in the future if/when it reappears (i.e., totally doing you a favor in the long run).

I'll say no more on this, and preemptively remind you about the rule against discussing forum enforcement in chat (though I'm not around in chat now, you can find me in #mod generally).

Note: Though I won't close the whole thread, I'll re-read his post for individual instances of problems.

You_Fool, I hope you don't think your argument is made any more legitimate by the personal attacks.  X(

(Refraining judgment on whether I'm enforcing mod action here, but outside my official title, I'm just taking the moment to say you definitely could have made your argument without the jab there... making that attack makes you no better than exactly what you're accusing Flint of doing.) X(

Don't let Wendy play until she gets a note from her doctor that she's physically healthy enough for mafia! 

Edit... out... coordinates!  X(

But that requires I do work...

*yells at pie for bumping old threads*

> Einstein wrote:

> Insurance is known to increase costs Zarf, I have paid cash at some locations and gotten discounts for doing so. They do this because far less paperwork is needed. Additionally being able to 'shop' prices means a hospital 20 miles away which is cheaper will now be where you go instead of a hospital next door... when you need on going treatments.

Okay, two more questions:

1: Is that the only way by which insurance increases costs?

2: This stance counters a basic fundamental of economic theory that makes free markets work: rational choice.  If what you say is strictly the case, why have consumers on such a massive scale determined that health insurance is such a useful item that the industry has become so massive?  Where's the value added?

No, it just means you're both wrong. 

What do I get to be an expert on if I'm fairly good at Civilization 4?

Moved to ideas.