The National Collaborativist Thread

AssHatZombie said:
Follow along. Show me where i've advocated fascism, as threedee asserts I have.


As for this thread, it's more evidence of being quite superior.
Click to expand...

I never said you have....the pot comment was referring to you telling someone they had trouble with reading comprehension.

The only thing this thread does is disappoint me that you are the only person who came out to play--- it would have been interesting to talk about the subject with someone with a brain so that I might be forced to think about and refine my idea.
 
gonzojournals said:
I never said you have....the pot comment was referring to you telling someone they had trouble with reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
Well I have no trouble with reading comprehension. So I figured you were talking about the fascism part.
The only thing this thread does is disappoint me that you are the only person who came out to play--- it would have been interesting to talk about the subject with someone with a brain so that I might be forced to think about and refine my idea.
Click to expand...

I've asked you to. How do you convince people to be happy with their station in life? You refused to answer. So answer now.
 
AssHatZombie said:
WTF is wrong with you, gonzo? I guess you don't REALLY want to discuss your ideas.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with me? I have a life--- I am not on here 24 hours a day....I suggest that you wait until I log back on to ask for my responses.

And, as I said, I have already answered your question--- you chose to ignore my answer.
 
AssHatZombie said:
3d, show me where I've agitate for fascism, or improve your reading comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

Your defense is both logically and historically lagging. The founders who declared "friendly relations and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none" were indeed isolationists. They were political isolationists, and it has always been understood as a strictly political attitude. From Washington to the present the US has been involved in free trade (with rare cases of things such as embargos, like Jefferson's infamous "Dambargo" of 1807 to keep us out of military conflict in Europe).

Logically, you cannot impose "Phare Trade" without it being a fascistic move. Free Trade is the mark of a republic founded on natural rights. Anything else is fascism.
 
Threedee said:
Your defense is both logically and historically lagging. The founders who declared "friendly relations and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none" were indeed isolationists. They were political isolationists, and it has always been understood as a strictly political attitude. From Washington to the present the US has been involved in free trade (with rare cases of things such as embargos, like Jefferson's infamous "Dambargo" of 1807 to keep us out of military conflict in Europe).

Logically, you cannot impose "Phare Trade" without it being a fascistic move. Free Trade is the mark of a republic founded on natural rights. Anything else is fascism.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. we have always had tariffs and always used trade as a stick or carrot. It's dishonest to pretend that a government which makes it even possible for it's citizens to have jobs through these moderating measures is some form of fascism. Choke on your lies, bitch.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's bullshit. we have always had tariffs and always used trade as a stick or carrot. It's dishonest to pretend that a government which makes it even possible for it's citizens to have jobs through these moderating measures is some form of fascism. Choke on your lies, bitch.
Click to expand...

Not always-- in the modern world there are penalties for such actions.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's bullshit. we have always had tariffs and always used trade as a stick or carrot. It's dishonest to pretend that a government which makes it even possible for it's citizens to have jobs through these moderating measures is some form of fascism. Choke on your lies, bitch.
Click to expand...

Tarrifs were strictly for revenue, as there were no internal taxes (sales, income, property, etc.) for the longest time. Only in very recent history have tarrifs been used as a political weapon against unpopular nations.
 
Threedee said:
Tarrifs were strictly for revenue, as there were no internal taxes (sales, income, property, etc.) for the longest time. Only in very recent history have tarrifs been used as a political weapon against unpopular nations.
Click to expand...

It's not as a weapon. It's a protection. that's why is called protectionism. It's needed sometimes, to avoid ruining domestic industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top