{tube} Michael Savage Says Forget Habeas Corpus In Order To Deal With Iran

[Boss]

OMG! He's got an MBA in finance? Suddenly everything he typed makes sense!

 

[Elfshadow]

Wow alot of this thread is fodder for the mainstream republican base. We must all be the same, the whole point of having states is so that we don't have to be the same. 200 years of us not needing to be the same, and now we need to all have the same language and culture? Being a melting pot of mixing culture and language is what made us great. What a load. I want to be free to be who I want to be. "All we need to agree on is that we should all be free."

 

[No Free Beer]

OMG! He's got an MBA in finance? Suddenly everything he typed makes sense!

I wasn't the one who brought up his level of education.

 

[Boss]

Bing hasn't graduated beyond pundit-level debate tactics yet, and his arguments in this thread are often speculative, if not fallacious. When he can move beyond this, he'll probably get a higher level of intellectual discussion going. To be fair, the people he has engaged in argument are also on his level of reasoning. But, its certainly a good feeling to see RP supporters debating details though--it represents the growing and diverse legion of RP voters

 

[No Free Beer]

Wow alot of this thread is fodder for the mainstream republican base. We must all be the same, the whole point of having states is so that we don't have to be the same. 200 years of us not needing to be the same, and now we need to all have the same language and culture? Being a melting pot of mixing culture and language is what made us great. What a load. I want to be free to be who I want to be. "All we need to agree on is that we should all be free."

ldn

Sorry, but you are not getting the point. No one is saying that we shouldn't be a melting pot or that we shouldn't be who we are. What I am saying, because I am not going to speak for Bing, we do have a culture. If you ignore that fact, than you do so at your own peril. There is such thing as American culture, whether you want to recognize that or not.

 

[No Free Beer]

Bing hasn't graduated beyond pundit-level debate tactics yet, and his arguments in this thread are often speculative, if not fallacious. When he can move beyond this, he'll probably get a higher level of intellectual discussion going. To be fair, the people he has engaged in argument are also on his level of reasoning. But, its certainly a good feeling to see RP supporters debating details though--it represents the growing and diverse legion of RP voters

Why don't you actually say something then and not just talk about his character. Make an argument or be quiet.

 

[musicmax]

Not necessarily spin about Ron Paul, but it looks like Savage has officially gone off the deep end.

I am making an MP3 of that so I can play it on my phone anytime anyone within earshot says the words "Michael Savage".

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Bing hasn't graduated beyond pundit-level debate tactics yet, and his arguments in this thread are often speculative, if not fallacious. When he can move beyond this, he'll probably get a higher level of intellectual discussion going. To be fair, the people he has engaged in argument are also on his level of reasoning. But, its certainly a good feeling to see RP supporters debating details though--it represents the growing and diverse legion of RP voters

Hey "boss". If your so much more advanced in your level of reasoning, why don't you try and explain to all of us here how you can enact a free trade policy without being voted out of office. I won't attack your character because there is no need to do so. You haven't made one cogent point in this entire thread regarding the implications of retaliatory trade policy, nor do you cite any historical examples. I will cite one. Why don't you look at what happened to Ronald Reagan; he was someone who believed in free trade, but who realized that it was not politically pragmatic to allow the Japanese to dump excess inventory of their 3RD rate gov-t subsidized bikes on the US market and put out harley davidson. Case in point:


Though the recession of the early 1980s had depressed demand for heavyweight bikes, Japanese manufacturers swamped the U.S. market with their surplus inventory, driving average market prices down still further. In 1982, however, the company won an anti-dumping judgment from the International Trade Commission (ITC). This led then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan to impose additional tariffs on imported heavyweight Japanese models, as allowed by the ITC.

The additional tariffs–45 percent on top of an existing 4.4 percent measure–were meant to decrease gradually over five years, until April 1988. These measures would give Harley-Davidson the opportunity to effect its revitalization plans. Predictably, as the company’s market share began to increase, so, too, did its profits. Harley-Davidson had lost $25 million in 1982, but rebounded into the black again in 1983 before posting $2.9 million in profits on sales of $294 million in 1984. Though Japanese bike makers were able to elude some of the tariffs by building more machines in the United States, by 1986 Harley-Davidson’s share of the U.S. super heavyweight market had crept back up to 33.3 percent, ahead of Honda for the first time since 1980.

Here is what the ITC considers “dumping”

imports that are sold in the United States at less than fair value (“dumped”) or which benefit from subsidies provided through foreign government programs. Under the law, the U.S. Department of Commerce determines whether the dumping or subsidizing exists and, if so, the margin of dumping or amount of the subsidy; the USITC determines whether there is material injury or threat of material injury to the domestic industry by reason of the dumped or subsidized imports.

This is what happens when you have international markets and 3rd world labor markets which can USE THEIR LOW COST LABOR ADVANTAGE to undercut more advanced labor markets, such as ours. OUR ADVANTAGE is the size of our market and our wealth, and we should use it to curtail their ability to undercut our manufacturers if they RESORT to the tactics outlined above. In response, look at what the Japanese did. They brought operations here so that they would be able to ACCESS OUR MARKET. I can't make the claim that there was a net surplus in jobs created, because I don't have the figures in front of me, but for you to sit there and make the PHONY argument that protectionism is disadvantageous is downright desperate, and you are about as fake and weak minded as the Senator from PA who got smacked up in the debate Weds. night. k thx

 

[ctiger2]

A friend of mine called me the other night. He was driving through the desert and was stuck listening to Levin. He said that Levin went on and on for 45 minutes lambasting Paul. Anyone hear about that.

This is VERY VERY GOOD! It means Ron's #winning #duh

 

[TheTexan]

This is what happens when you have international markets and 3rd world labor markets which can USE THEIR LOW COST LABOR ADVANTAGE to undercut more advanced labor markets, such as ours. OUR ADVANTAGE is the size of our market and our wealth, and we should use it to curtail their ability to undercut our manufacturers if they RESORT to the tactics outlined above. In response, look at what the Japanese did. They brought operations here so that they would be able to ACCESS OUR MARKET. I can't make the claim that there was a net surplus in jobs created, because I don't have the figures in front of me, but for you to sit there and make the PHONY argument that protectionism is disadvantageous is downright desperate, and you are about as fake and weak minded as the Senator from PA who got smacked up in the debate Weds. night. k thx

If a company can't compete in a global marketplace, it can't compete, end of story. Reducing competition only harms the consumer. It doesn't create jobs. If the consumer can save $1,000 by buying from Japan instead of the U.S., it goes back into the economy, helping to create new jobs to displace the ones that were lost. Eliminating competition only props up bad companies, and you have to continually maintain and increase this 'propping up' until eventually it collapses under its own weight.

Harley may have escaped this fate by getting its act together by the time the tariff ended - but companies like this don't need government intervention in the first place. If it's truly a good company that's just had some bad luck and needs a temporary fix - there are market mechanisms for that.

 

[milo10]

well in all honesty you need to read a history book. Anyone on here who SEDUCTIVELY advocates for transnationalism by rationalizing open borders is clearly void of any historical understanding of balkanization. It has happened in rome, the former yugoslavia, and is now happening here. When groups of people within a country do not share the same cultural values, and do the same things, and naturally divide into their own enclaves, it becomes a natural source of animosity and hatred. usually, this tribal accumulation of hatred and lack of assimilation comes from those who immigrate here illegally. When groups don't read the same newspapers, watch the same movies, play SPORTS together (i.e. negro leagues and mlb) and share the same values culturally, they tend to disintegrate. This is why you have ghettos in miami like "little havana". I say lets turn "little havana" into "little get out and go back to cuba".

What's paradoxical is that most of this sounds like an argument for forced integration.

If you took an anarchist position, then people could form whatever communities they like, around any type of groupings that they like. You don't have to be as PC as Pat is, and primarily focus on illegal immigrants. I'd rather live in a local Chinatown than a slum like Detroit, and it doesn't matter to me that many people in Chinatown are there illegally, and many people from Detroit are 8th generation Americans.

The point is freedom, and that is the direction that Ron is heading in. I respect where you're coming from, but Pat's statist approach to these issues is not going anywhere.

 

[No Free Beer]

Illegals are invaders. Plain and simple. End of story.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

If a company can't compete in a global marketplace, it can't compete, end of story. Reducing competition only harms the consumer. It doesn't create jobs. If the consumer can save $1,000 by buying from Japan instead of the U.S., it goes back into the economy, helping to create new jobs to displace the ones that were lost. Eliminating competition only props up bad companies, and you have to continually maintain and increase this 'propping up' until eventually it collapses under its own weight.

Harley may have escaped this fate by getting its act together by the time the tariff ended - but companies like this don't need government intervention in the first place. If it's truly a good company that's just had some bad luck and needs a temporary fix - there are market mechanisms for that.

You miss the point as well. THE JAPANESE MOTOR BIKE MANUFACTURERS WERE GOV'T SUBSIDIZED. The only reason the Japanese were able to flood our market with these bikes was because they were subsidized. That's not fair by ANY standard. The 1000$ bike you cite, purchased from the Japanese, DOESN'T go back into OUR economy. It goes overseas into the pockets of those who STOLE TAXPAYER MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE AN INDUSTRY. My point is that if they want to steal taxpayer money to aggressively corner a cross section of a market, at the expense of a concentrated labor pool within another foreign nation, one who is much more powerful in terms of economic scale, then they should be ready to pay the price. American labor unions suck, but you can't allow gov't subsidized industries of other countries to purposely and consciously GUT american industry. NEXT.

 

[TheTexan]

You miss the point as well. THE JAPANESE MOTOR BIKE MANUFACTURERS WERE GOV'T SUBSIDIZED. The only reason the Japanese were able to flood our market with these bikes was because they were subsidized. That's not fair by ANY standard. The 1000$ bike you cite, purchased from the Japanese, DOESN'T go back into OUR economy. It goes overseas into the pockets of those who STOLE TAXPAYER MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE AN INDUSTRY. My point is that if they want to steal taxpayer money to aggressively corner a cross section of a market, at the expense of a concentrated labor pool within another foreign nation, one who is much more powerful in terms of economic scale, then they should be ready to pay the price. American labor unions suck, but you can't allow gov't subsidized industries of other countries to purposely and consciously GUT american industry. NEXT.

Doesn't matter how or where the competitive advantage comes from. Jesus Christ could come down from the heavens himself and build those bikes. Reducing competition only harms the consumer.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The protectionists are at it again. The only perspective they ever look at is the producer or, Industrial interest and never the consumer. Who says we need a motorcycle industry if foreign makers are able to produce them cheaper and better quality? Your argument boils down to Nationalism and not economics. It's silly. Protectionist destroys economies and standard of living, not enhances. Who the hell cares if there are motorcycle jobs if the resources needed to purchase one is double or more? How does that benefit the consumer, economy, and our standard of living? It doesn't. It benefits Industrial interests though, and that is always what results from Protectionism. You will see industrial leaders getting extremely wealthy and the rest of us having to endure a lower standard of living due to higher prices for worse quality products. ITS FUCKING STUPID.

I try not to call it bigotry, but it is damn near close to the level of bigotry. That is the argument most Protectionists employ. Those evil foreigners stealing our jobs! Only an ignoramous with no knowledge of economics would posit such drivel.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Doesn't matter how or where the competitive advantage comes from. Jesus Christ could come down from the heavens himself and build those bikes. Reducing competition only harms the consumer.

Stop using words, of which you don't know the meaning. "Competitive advantage" refers to an internally generated synergy within a firm producing a good or service.
Competitive advantage occurs when an organization acquires or develops an attribute or combination of attributes that allows it to outperform its competitors. These attributes can include access to natural resources, such as high grade ores or inexpensive power, or access to highly trained and skilled personnel human resources. New technologies such as robotics and information technology either to be included as a part of the product, or to assist making it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage

When the gov't of another foreign nation decides its going to subsidize an industry within their borders, so as to wipe out a firm within the borders of another country, there is cause and need for retaliation. Gov't assistance is NOT a competitive advantage. You are probably one of those people that will claim that sanctions on another foreign nation are "an act of war" but you won't recognize the same exact thing, involving labor, on a smaller scale. You are a SERIAL hypocrite.

 

[Boss]

Alright, Bing. I will indulge.

Hey "boss". If your so much more advanced in your level of reasoning, why don't you try and explain to all of us here how you can enact a free trade policy without being voted out of office.

To answer your question: "How you can enact a free trade policy without being voted out of office" - I think this is pretty simple: first, you enact a free trade policy, and second, you get the most votes in the next election you are a part of (thereby not being voted out of office).

If you meant to ask "How can a free trade policy work?" - I can help you answer this question. Please use this link to read Murray Rothbard's relatively brief but thorough answer in his article "Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity": http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp - he even has a segment of this discussion devoted entirely to "Dumping" that I think you will find useful

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Stop using words, of which you don't know the meaning. "Competitive advantage" refers to an internally generated synergy within a firm producing a good or service.
Competitive advantage occurs when an organization acquires or develops an attribute or combination of attributes that allows it to outperform its competitors. These attributes can include access to natural resources, such as high grade ores or inexpensive power, or access to highly trained and skilled personnel human resources. New technologies such as robotics and information technology either to be included as a part of the product, or to assist making it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage

When the gov't of another foreign nation decides its going to subsidize an industry within their borders, so as to wipe out a firm within the borders of another country, there is cause and need for retaliation. Gov't assistance is NOT a competitive advantage. You are probably one of those people that will claim that sanctions on another foreign nation are "an act of war" but you won't recognize the same exact thing, involving labor, on a smaller scale. You are a SERIAL hypocrite.

It's called comparative advantage and it doesn't matter how it comes about. In fact, it is a benefit for foreign nations to subsidize our consumption. When they do so we have an increase in our standard of living. Let's not get into the stupidity that is 'trade deficit' and other Mercantilist non-sense that was destroyed over 200 years ago by Quesnay, Bastiat, Cobden, and Bright. You have yet to show why it is paramount to have must have industries remain within our borders. Most protectionists don't realize either that trade fosters an environment of peace, friendship, and mutual benefit.

 

[Boss]

Bing if you find yourself reluctant to take the time to read Rothbard's article that I posted, perhaps this quote from the article will entice you:

We conclude that the sheaf of protectionist arguments, many plausible at first glance, are really a tissue of egregious fallacies. They betray a complete ignorance of the most basic economic analysis. Indeed, some of the arguments are almost embarrassing replicas of the most ridiculous claims of 17th-century mercantilism: for example, that it is somehow a calamitous problem that the U.S. has a balance of trade deficit, not overall, but merely with one specific country, e.g., Japan.

Must we even relearn the rebuttals of the more sophisticated mercantilists of the 18th century: namely, that balances with individual countries will cancel each other out, and therefore that we should only concern ourselves with the overall balance? (Let alone realize that the overall balance is no problem either.) But we need not reread the economic literature to realize that the impetus for protectionism comes not from preposterous theories, but from the quest for coerced special privilege and restraint of trade at the expense of efficient competitors and consumers. In the host of special interests using the political process to repress and loot the rest of us, the protectionists are among the most venerable. It is high time that we get them, once and for all, off our backs, and treat them with the righteous indignation they so richly deserve.

http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

 

[nbruno322]

Michael Savage Rabidly Says Forget Habeas Corpus, Foams at the Mouth for War with Iran