Try just showing a real world example of this Free Trade you worship.
A deaf man can tell when his pocket is being picked.
Bosso
Smoote-Hawley Tarriff
- Thread starter showpan
- Start date
Try just showing a real world example of this Free Trade you worship.
A deaf man can tell when his pocket is being picked.
Bosso
What the graph shows is that without including MacDonalds hamburgers and Weapons Systems in your fudged graph, the truth of the matter becomes painfully evident, to everyone but the Free Trader Cultists.
Remember... DDT is good for you and your children. The government proved it years ago:
Perfect. Having 6 taxes raped off the top of your paycheck every week doesn't affect real wages. Do you actually ever read what you post?
Productive people who have the longest work week, shortest vacation time, fewest sick days, shortest sick leave, most patents, most inventions, etc., of any people who ever lived on this planet... has nothing to do with the fact that industrial production in the US has been obliterated and the numbers fudged to obscure that fact from the lazy believer.
Debt and war are up, everything else is down. Just admit it and all things will become easier.
Repeating for the propaganda lover in you: Had the government not had TV, people might not have ended up eating and drinking the shit by the ton. Quality of life... wow.
I guess if you really do need to know what toothpaste most dentists recommend and you need your news to be fair and balanced...
At the turn of the century, tariffs, among other things, enabled the US to surpass the British Empire in less than a decade. IOW... US manufacturers = special interest group... British Empire globalists free traders = specially targeted group... result = win for US, lose for BE.
After the removal of the dollar from the Bretton Woods gold standard, that world renowned production capacity was erased by the globalists in less than a decade. That required, among many other devious BS machinations, giving Communist China, who supplied every weapon that killed 55,000 US soldiers in Vietnam 5 years earlier, Most Favored Nation status. Fuckin' aye, who couldn't see the free market logic in that?
You guys actually believe the "Chinese Miracle" was funded with the savings accounts of the peasants and built with bamboo poles in a decade and a half.
100 years of industrial production without par reduced to being called "The Rust Belt" in less than a decade. Public money allocated to raze the mills and build in their stead... shopping malls. 700 million credit cards keeping the USPS alive for 20 years. Home equity loans approved on the spot with no docs. New construction loans approved before you even apply. Yeah, evidence of the free market at work, no doubt.
Food Safety Act, Patriot Act, They Hate Us Because We're Beautiful, Green Shoots, The New Economy, M3 Is Too Expensive To Calculate, Health Care Is A Right, industrial production is up, productivity is up, and, don't forget, It's A Global Economy With Liberty And Free Trade For All.
What effect did S/H tariffs have on the GD? None whatsoever. It's been proven countless times using the governments own stats.
Tariffs with reciprocity IS free trade. What we've had for the past 30 years is pure BS. Warfare and Welfare funded by debt secured with home equity and future taxes on earnings and retirement savings and funded by profits taken by foreigners who are given one way street free trade in exchange for those debt purchases and military base privileges isn't productive and has an expiration date.
Bosso
Last edited:
The Grinning Maniac
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 178
Bravo.
Paul Or Nothing II
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,288
Nope, if other countries want to put import-tariffs & raise the prices of their domestic goods then so be it, we needn't "reciprocate" & raise prices of goods here, that'd be stupidity
And I find it quite funny that all the "tariffers" seem to think that the only reason the country is where it is because of not having tariffs & if we'd tariffs everything would be great
People are missing the basic point that all of these problems are caused by Fed, warfare-welfare-state, overregulation & overtaxation & if these things are taken care of then there'd be so many businesses who'd want to set up shop here & there'd be so many jobs & productivity that tariffs won't be needed anyway.It should be obvious to any rational person that even if tariffs are raised on the manufacturing imports to protect local manufacturing industries, it'd raise the prices quite a bit & there'd be more price inflation than there already is so again, if other countries want to raise their domestic prices then let them but that doesn't mean we should be just as stupid as them. Again, economic problems that are there have been caused by Fed, overregulation & overtaxation so deregulation, cutting taxes & having sound money is the cure, NOT tariffs.
Last edited:
VBRonPaulFan
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,202
This is really an argument of practicality vs. philosophical purity, IMO. There are really good points both ways, but if I was going to find some way to fund a government... it'd be through voluntary donations/user fees and tariffs.
This entire conversation is insane. I'm talking to mercantilists whom believe that the economy is to be run by the government. The market is incapable of rationally allocating resources or creating wealth; we need politicians with no profit motive to steer to the economy. Theories and statistics be damned, they'll take out jobs if we don't have the government save us.
It shows no such thing. It shows that over a short period of time there were two recessions, as already shown. Had the previous 10 years been shown the statistic would have completely invalidated your claim. You're grasping at straws.
That's nice, but it is not related to the discussion of how much people make. The average American makes 6 times more now than they did in 1913 and has access to technology that nobody could dream of in 1913. That is the end of the discussion.
I'm talking to someone who believes that if I don't pay for said wars I should go to jail. The irony.
As a supporter of freedom, I am glad that people can now sit back, relax, have fun, and get fat. This was all created by increased productivity through voluntary exchange. You wish to lower productivity and decrease wealth. Your anti capitalistic mentality is showing.
Of course it is the government to credit. It could not be the American people who are to credit. The government deserves it; we would be helpless without the legislature guiding us.
I don't have any idea what you're trying to pull with the claim that the US surpassed Britain. The United States population was growing far faster than Britains(twice as large by the turn of the century), and the United States had lower overall tax rates. 19th century Britain was one of the richest, most powerful nations in history. They declined only in relative terms, as the rest of the world began their Industrial Revolution throughout the 19th century, and many countries had their population grow at a far faster rate.
And yet, US manufacturing is more than three times higher now than it was in the early 70s.
It was built by Capital, the same way every other country in the world industrialized. Your "argument" would apply to every other country in the world that has ever industrialized; they all started out with nothing.
And yet you're spending this entire thread defending the disguisting system of theft and murder in order to protect special interest groups.
It's been shown time and time again in this topic that it did contribute to the depression.
It shows no such thing. It shows that over a short period of time there were two recessions, as already shown. Had the previous 10 years been shown the statistic would have completely invalidated your claim. You're grasping at straws.
Perfect. Having 6 taxes raped off the top of your paycheck every week doesn't affect real wages. Do you actually ever read what you post?
Productive people who have the longest work week, shortest vacation time, fewest sick days, shortest sick leave, most patents, most inventions, etc., of any people who ever lived on this planet... has nothing to do with the fact that industrial production in the US has been obliterated and the numbers fudged to obscure that fact from the lazy believer.
That's nice, but it is not related to the discussion of how much people make. The average American makes 6 times more now than they did in 1913 and has access to technology that nobody could dream of in 1913. That is the end of the discussion.
I'm talking to someone who believes that if I don't pay for said wars I should go to jail. The irony.
As a supporter of freedom, I am glad that people can now sit back, relax, have fun, and get fat. This was all created by increased productivity through voluntary exchange. You wish to lower productivity and decrease wealth. Your anti capitalistic mentality is showing.
Of course it is the government to credit. It could not be the American people who are to credit. The government deserves it; we would be helpless without the legislature guiding us.
I don't have any idea what you're trying to pull with the claim that the US surpassed Britain. The United States population was growing far faster than Britains(twice as large by the turn of the century), and the United States had lower overall tax rates. 19th century Britain was one of the richest, most powerful nations in history. They declined only in relative terms, as the rest of the world began their Industrial Revolution throughout the 19th century, and many countries had their population grow at a far faster rate.
And yet, US manufacturing is more than three times higher now than it was in the early 70s.
It was built by Capital, the same way every other country in the world industrialized. Your "argument" would apply to every other country in the world that has ever industrialized; they all started out with nothing.
And yet you're spending this entire thread defending the disguisting system of theft and murder in order to protect special interest groups.
It's been shown time and time again in this topic that it did contribute to the depression.
The Founding Fathers owned slaves and yet they were opposed to slavery. Is this the Michelle Bachmann forums?
Hamilton lowered tariffs? The tariffs bills at the time were literally named after Hamilton because they were largely his ideas. Are you some kind of parody? A troll?
You think that Mercantillism is for low tariffs?
Good job Showpan. This might have been the dumbest post I have ever read. There is no way I can believe that you are a serious poster, and not a troll looking to get a rise out of us.
Last edited:
showpan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,385
One of the earliest statements on U.S. trade policy is Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures in 1791. This report called for government support of manufacturing through higher import tariffs, which Hamilton never implemented. In contrast, Hamilton's proposal for bounties (subsidies) failed to receive support, and it was Congress who adopted virtually every tariff recommendation put forward in the report by early 1792 after amending Hamilton's bill.
Cutlerzzz...although you keep fishing, I will not be baited with such games and history and economics will not be rewritten here.
I rather enjoy correcting false historical misconceptions. Our founders were amazing men....well at least most of them were anyway.
When you're claiming that Hamilton tried to lower tariffs, and that low tariffs are what mercantilist stood for. I think that enough has been said, you're just trolling. It explains all of the dumb things you have said. Nobody could actually be this stupid. Your own links debunk your statements for crying out loud.
Last edited:
showpan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,385
....then you didn't read my post or those links. More personal attacks from behind your keyboard....?
Production as you claim is NOT up if you consider that fast foods and fish wrapping are not manufacturing jobs.
As former president H.W. Bush was writing NAFTA back In 1991, another despicable lie was being written by the North American Industry Classification System in order to justify this obvious sell out of American jobs. Not only did NAICS reclassify fast foods (hamburgers, salads, fires, soft drinks) as part of manufacturing changing their classification from food service and processing, they also reclassified pasteurization of milk and fish wrapping among others. What is even more shocking, in order to embellish their lie, they also made it retroactive to unemployment statistics beginning in...1995, the year that NAFTA was enacted.
They not only reclassified manufacturing, they did this to the service sector too. This shifting of employment to service sectors under NAICS resulted in declines in other sectors like Agriculture and Retail Trade with the reclassification of restaurants into the service sector. Changes in the definition of Wholesale Trade establishments result in only a small decline 4.8% down to 4.1% so nobody would really notice but the increase in service sector was huge because they also reclassified other industries where nobody really ever pays attention. Corporate headquarters of companies are now classified as service activities under NAICS. Formerly, under SIC these business establishments were classified according to the business activity of the enterprise they served. Also Professional, Technical, Healthcare, Social Assistance and Educational were all reclassifies into the service sector.
The restructuring of industry groups under NAICS when it was implemented in 1997 resulted in a decline in the average weekly wage for manufacturing by $90, but an increase of $74 in service sector. Any statistics in manufacturing and service after 1995 should be considered bunk since the way in which these statistics are collected have been greatly altered. This also effects government handouts (corporate welfare) since reclassifies industries are now able to exploit subsidies and loopholes that were once meant for those industries they were actually created for.
No, you once again posted a link about something you don't understand, or willfully ignore. Your own link will lead you to the fact that Hamilton proposed those tariffs, that the tariffs were named after him, and that industry got various subsidies after Hamilton proposed them through out the 1790s. The Anti-Federalists opposed them.
Were you serious before when you claimed that Mercantilists stood for lower tariffs, or was that a brainfart?
And don't forget that you started these insults. When you insult somebody else, and then claim that mercantilism was the belief in lower tariffs, expect to be called stupid or accused of trolling.
Prove it.
I forgot, you don't care about statistics or theory. Just copy/paste random articles you get from your union.
Corporate welfare is never justified.
Last edited:
showpan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,385
You had better read this entire thread again to see who actually started the insults and twisted words around.
And I will stand by my comment that anyone who agrees with what has happened is supporting necon globalist policies....big difference between that and "free trade" Did you actually read my post on Hamilton? Did you do a search like I did that revealed Hamilton never proposed those tariffs, he wanted very low tariffs, 5% and bounties that nobody approved of so congress rewrote the bill....see, I just stated it again for you since you didn't understand it the first time. Your response was based on no facts at all, just your opinions and further attacks. I proved my last point by searching through the NAICS site and reporting my findings...if you are going to refute them...why don't you do the same instead of more personal attacks and insults and then claims that you didn't start them.
stupid debate tactics:
1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.
2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,
Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.
Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.
Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you!
Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?
Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue.
The best part about this from the left-wing debater's perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates.
3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example,
Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we've ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy?
Moderator: That's great, but the question was, "Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the "Disputed Territories"?
It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.
4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?
This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them.
5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,
Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM!
Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that...
Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time.
Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait...I remember now -- you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me!
Mother: Nice try, you're still grounded!
The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn't stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It's all just a way to rewrite history.
6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example...
Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't!
Moderator: That's fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
Arafat: Why don't you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don't you ask them that?
Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question.
Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over!
When they duck the question, it's a pretty good indication that they don't have an answer anyone wants to hear.
7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people.
So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on "daddy", because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam's rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares -- they're all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it's all too easy to just pretend something else is what you're really upset about.
8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case. For example,
Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park.
Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in "his spot" and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn't sound like he was "minding his own business" to me.
Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug -- ha, ha, ha! Hey, that's just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here....you're not laughing. OK, just checking -- is that plea bargain still available?
9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not.
Nice job changing the subject again when you cannot defend any of your insane points. You clearly started the insults, calling me a neocon globalist who wished to destroy American industry, and claimed that I was probably bought off by banks in a conspiracy.
Those tariffs were NAMED after Hamilton for a reason. He was a mercantilist, as you have noted. However, you don't seem to have a basic level of understanding on these things. You claim that mercantilism is the belief in low tariffs. That is the opposite of what a mercantilist believes in. Mercantilism is based on the idea that you need to export more than you import, as you advocate. You're a mercantilist.
Those tariffs were NAMED after Hamilton for a reason. He was a mercantilist, as you have noted. However, you don't seem to have a basic level of understanding on these things. You claim that mercantilism is the belief in low tariffs. That is the opposite of what a mercantilist believes in. Mercantilism is based on the idea that you need to export more than you import, as you advocate. You're a mercantilist.
nobody's_hero
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,909
Well, China has adopted the mercantilist strategy, and it seems to be working for much of Asia, for that matter. In fact, you could throw much of Asia into the mix of countries actually benefiting from "exporting more than they import".
showpan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,385
The Chinese government has continued its successful policy of imposing tariffs and non-tariff barriers upon U.S. products.
1. In 2009, the Chinese government excluded American products from its catalogs of the products that could be purchased with its consumer subsidies. Through this and other means it reduced imports from the United States despite the growth of the Chinese economy by a reported 8.7%.
2. In February, new Chinese tariffs of up to 105% on American chicken products helped the Chinese government reduce imports from the United States, despite growth of the Chinese economy by a reported 11.9%.
3. On April 13, China's Commerce Ministry announced new duties on a type of U.S. steel used in the power sector.
4. This week, the Chinese government raised its tariffs on some U.S. nylon from 36.2% to 96.5%, The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch reported on April 22:
China's Commerce Ministry imposed a 96.5% duty on certain types of nylon imports from the U.S., more than doubling a preliminary anti-dumping tariff of 36.2% set in October, according to a report by the Xinhua news agency....
The Obama administration lets China practice mercantilism, the strategy of maximizing exports and minimizing imports. In 2009, we bought $305 billion worth of goods and services from China, while the Chinese government only let its people buy $85 billion worth from us (according to preliminary BEA statistics).
U.S. exports to China would increase if the Obama administration were to insist upon balanced trade, as permitted by a special WTO rule for trade deficit countries. He could impose an across-the-board tariff on all Chinese goods whose rate would be kept proportional to the U.S.-China trade deficit. The Chinese government would then take down its many, many barriers to U.S. products.
China is growing inspite of tariffs, and not all of Asia is doing so well. Japan has protectionist policies and have found themselves in a depression for 20 years now, one of the longest in history. China has lower taxes, fewer regulations, and they actual save money, that is they are growing. China is also in a bubble right now making things look better than they are. The United States had a trade deficit for its first 100 years of existence, and yet by 1880 we were right behind Britain and Germany for the worlds largest economy. You cannot feed yourself with paper, or warm yourself with gold. You need real products to do so. Imports trade paper for real products that individuals value; that is good for the world. Mercantilism is the idea that paper and gold is wealth that needs to be perpetually accumalted by trading products that people work to produce in exchange for said paper and gold. It's the idea that working is not means to an end, but the end itself. It's the idea that we need a strong central government to guide the economy in order to stop market prices from reaching equalibrium.
You're a good poster and a Ron Paul supporter, it's just frustrating that you don't agree with us on this issue.
Last edited:
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
Cutlerzzz, they are like every other coercive point of view on any other subject...those who think government is needed to direct individuals in their lives, regardless of the topics (like trade, immigration, currency competition, drug policy, religious and moral values, etc.,etc.) are either uninformed or sadistic sociopaths who revel in wielding power.
We convinced all the uninformed already...all that remains to debate us are sadists and sociopaths hell-bent on controling our lives. These people HATE that my property rights mean I can trade with whomever I please because it benefits me, not their precious COLLECTIVE. Then they have the nerve to say we are "greedy" or "it is ins't sustainable"...right, like any State in history has ever been sustainable, while every economy recovers after the fall of the State.
We won a long time ago...dogmatism isn't able to concede. We did what good we can...let them bounce their silly ideas off each other in a sound tunnel of echos...that's all they want to do anyway. It's obvious this isn't about a lack of information, it's about a lack of "give a shit" for any evidence that doesn't fit their failed case.
I give you mad props for doing so well for so long, but arguing with a wall isn't going to change the wall's mind
Cutlerzzz, they are like every other coercive point of view on any other subject...those who think government is needed to direct individuals in their lives, regardless of the topics (like trade, immigration, currency competition, drug policy, religious and moral values, etc.,etc.) are either uninformed or sadistic sociopaths who revel in wielding power.
We convinced all the uninformed already...all that remains to debate us are sadists and sociopaths hell-bent on controling our lives. These people HATE that my property rights mean I can trade with whomever I please because it benefits me, not their precious COLLECTIVE. Then they have the nerve to say we are "greedy" or "it is ins't sustainable"...right, like any State in history has ever been sustainable, while every economy recovers after the fall of the State.
We won a long time ago...dogmatism isn't able to concede. We did what good we can...let them bounce their silly ideas off each other in a sound tunnel of echos...that's all they want to do anyway. It's obvious this isn't about a lack of information, it's about a lack of "give a shit" for any evidence that doesn't fit their failed case.
I give you mad props for doing so well for so long, but arguing with a wall isn't going to change the wall's mind
You're probably right. I'll let this topic die now. I have no idea how some on this forum have been debating this for 4 years. Hopefully someone changed their mind somewhere.
Similar threads
