Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 154 of 1252

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   TWHOF (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275)
-   -   This is for you Trump voters. (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=683482)

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 15:47

"least" Learn english

motoxbudd 05-10-2016 15:50

imo, ALL imported goods should be taxed in direct proportion to the difference in avg workers wages. example: if imported widgetA costs $100, but countryA wages are 1/10th that of usa average in same industry, a 90% import tariff should be applied, making widgetA cost $190 to import from countryA.

granted, this unfairly/incorrectly assumes entire cost of item is labor only, but as raw and pre processed materials that go into production of widgetA are also prob much lower in countryA due to workers being paid 50cents/day

Greedo909 05-10-2016 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570545)
Jesus christ you're stupid. That doesn't compare to what I said in the leist. Learn english and reread my post.

:picard:

Free Trade has a specific meaning, look it up. It's not a relative term. Free trade agreements do not necessitate the actual practice of free trade.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp
http://www.britannica.com/topic/free-trade
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-trade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20trade

absent 05-10-2016 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570440)
the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

You work at a welfare job in a company that exists only because it charges the US government 5000 dollars for a nut and a bolt.

Eggi 05-10-2016 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by absent (Post 18570560)
You work at a welfare job in a company that exists only because it charges the US government 5000 dollars for a nut and a bolt.

well that has nothing to do w/ my post, but since u went so far out of ur way to say something that is factually incorrect 3 times in only 25 words:

u r extremely insulated and dumb

maybe u should stop scamming ppl into buy supplements w/ no scientific evidence of them being beneficial & instead go out into the real world and get a real job

ps i dont work defense
pps most of my cos revenue comes from commercial sales
ppps many of the us gov contracts are fixed price or cost+ if u dont know what that means maybe u should look it up

gg

Eggi 05-10-2016 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570526)
NAFTA is the opposite of free trade, its a crony mercantilist policy. It's about the federal government cartelizing control over the economy by controlling trade. There is nothing actually 'free' about it. If they honestly were interested in free trade, they could actually repeal the tariffs and government trade restrictions that hinder free trade to begin with. If you're being honest with yourself you know why that isn't going to happen, and what the government and big business have to gain through these 'free trade' agreements.

i agree that we should get rid of subsidies and tariffs except where it leaves our industries at a significant disadvantage to other countries where their governments are providing subsidies. i mean, unless you call that crony mercantilism (lol). based on your asinine post, i'm guessing im more libertarian when it comes to economic policy than you are.

ps have fun voting for trump u dummy

Reggs 05-10-2016 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570558)
:picard:

Free Trade has a specific meaning, look it up. It's not a relative term. Free trade agreements do not necessitate the actual practice of free trade.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp
http://www.britannica.com/topic/free-trade
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-trade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20trade

You're really on a role here. Every single time you reply it has literally no relation to anything I've posted. It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.

Gandalf 05-10-2016 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandalltheVandal (Post 18570426)
who the **** is trying to legalize heroin and meth?
nobody steals to support their pot habit you old ****

Sigh. The true libertarian would say "hell yeah, make all drugs legal, it's my body, my choice".

I'm not talking about pot, dumb ****.

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570592)
You're really on a role here. Every single time you reply it has literally no relation to anything I've posted. It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.


"Roll" Jesus Christ dude

RandalltheVandal 05-10-2016 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf (Post 18570593)
Sigh. The true libertarian would say "hell yeah, make all drugs legal, it's my body, my choice".

I'm not talking about pot, dumb ****.

bull****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf (Post 18570424)
All of you that support legalization of drugs fail to realize the costs for doing so. Sure, we'd save money on incarceration, but we'd be spending money on hospital costs, treatment, and increased crime from theft to feed their addictions. People addicted to Meth and Heroin aren't normally functioning tax paying members of society.

OK, end of my rambling.

"All of you support legalization of drugs."

no, we dont. We (mostly)support the legalization of pot.

Validuz 05-10-2016 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperTrap (Post 18570080)
You really are ****ing retarded. Trump blamed the deal on Clinton. Bush negotiated the deal. Clinton signed it into law. The blame falls on both but who negotiated the deal? Bush. Who signed the negotiated agreement? Bush. Why? because it was his deal. That is what trump was railing on. ****ing moron. You would expect a presidential candidate to know how things went down.

Go **** yourself **** stain

:rofl: You can cry about Bush Sr doing whatever all you want.

Clinton signed it into law. Hell, he agreed with it before signing it into law. It's not like he was strong-armed by Congress or something.

You're a piece of **** hypocrite.

Validuz 05-10-2016 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingSobieski (Post 18570448)
...

Its a fools errand to think welcoming immigrants is a long term solution, for every immigrant we allow in, theres another 3 born in whatever hell hole country they came from.

...

One correction. For every poor, dumb immigrant we take in, hundreds/thousands are born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570440)
the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

Free trade? This is where Eggi the Economist tells us what free trade is.

:lol: Corporate sponsored deals (and its direct benefits) are now "free trade" in Eggi's mind.

Greedo909 05-10-2016 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570591)
i agree that we should get rid of subsidies and tariffs except where it leaves our industries at a significant disadvantage to other countries where their governments are providing subsidies. i mean, unless you call that crony mercantilism (lol). based on your asinine post, i'm guessing im more libertarian when it comes to economic policy than you are.

ps have fun voting for trump u dummy

Trumps' trade policies are terrible as well, that doesn't mean he's wrong about NAFTA even if it makes him a hypocrite on free trade.

Rothbard:

Quote:

In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s trumpeting of “free trade” since World War II fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. The establishment’s goals and tactics have been consistently those of free trade’s traditional enemy, “mercantilism” — the system imposed by the nation-states of 16th to 18th century Europe. President Bush’s infamous trip to Japan was only one instance: trade policy as a continuing system of maneuverings to try to force other countries to purchase more American exports.

Whereas genuine free traders look at free markets and trade, domestic or international, from the point of view of the consumer (that is, all of us), the mercantilist, of the 16th century or today, looks at trade from the point of view of the power elite, big business in league with the government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government-business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.

In negotiations with Japan, for example, be they conducted by Reagan or Bush or Clinton, the point is to force Japan to buy more American products, for which the American government will graciously if reluctantly permit the Japanese to sell their products to American consumers. Imports are the price government pays to get other nations to accept our exports.

Another crucial feature of post-World War II establishment trade policy in the name of “free trade” is to push heavy subsidies of exports. A favorite method of subsidy has been the much beloved system of foreign aid, which, under the cover of “reconstructing Europe,” “stopping Communism,” or “spreading democracy,” is a racket by which the American taxpayers are forced to subsidize American export firms and industries as well as foreign governments who go along with this system. Nafta represents a continuation of this system by enlisting the U.S. government and American taxpayers in this cause.
The NAFTA Myth | Murray N. Rothbard

coombz 05-10-2016 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570592)
You're really on a role here.

when are you going to learn English?

havax 05-10-2016 18:00

:lol:

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 18:23

The types of governments that societies ultimately adopt are a symptom of the culture and situation in which a society finds itself.

The USSR, without authoritarian communism, could not have won WW2. Stalin took the plow and gave the Russians a nuclear weapon. Most Russians lived in serfdom prior to Communism and the great majority were the same poor and destitute social class - Communism flourished in such an atmosphere.

The Russians had the emancipation manifesto in 1861 that freed the 23 million serfs.

The Americans had the emancipation proclamation in 1863 that freed the 3 million slaves.

Drawn in contrast it's not hard to imagine why and how Communism took such a stringent foot hold in Russia and persists today in China.

The Chinese are culturally dissimilar from Americans in that they are not individualistic and are very communal people. Communism goes hand in hand with the Chinese mindset - being Confucius and playing nice with neighbors is a very communist thing to do.

The American 2 party system of democratic representation is the LEAST stable form of government in the world - there is no other country in the world practicing this style because they all instantly fail.

The failure of the USSR and USA are going to be very fascinating case studies to compare in the coming decades. The answer lies somewhere inbetween being Communist and being Capitalist. Use tools from each system that best serve a particular purpose - don't be a fan boy of a form of governance, be a pragmatist that can look clearly at any form and discern their inherent benefits.

JoMo 05-10-2016 19:49

WV called for Trump. Trump tied with Hillary in Battleground states. Hillary National lead collapsing.

https://m.popkey.co/7457d6/O9wpk.gif

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 20:10

I think it's all but a shoe in at the moment for Trump.

Doth think thou establishment protest too much.

Just let it happen baby, relax, it'll all be over soon.

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Validuz (Post 18570611)
:rofl: You can cry about Bush Sr doing whatever all you want.

Clinton signed it into law. Hell, he agreed with it before signing it into law. It's not like he was strong-armed by Congress or something.

You're a piece of **** hypocrite.


Die soon pls

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 20:16

lololololololololololol

http://www.electronics-lab.com/wp-co.../02/md_smt.jpg

i'll see you all in hell :D


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:48.
Page 154 of 1252

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC