Taken logically and objectively, that’s really a pretty dumb question. For most people, it would make far more sense to examine the facts as they are, evaluate them, and then make a determination as to the acceptability of the proposed outcome, rather than trying to list specific potential objections first, and then search for a reason to disapprove the deal.
Your thought process is faulty, the intellectual equivalent of the ponderous old Soviet dialectic materialism that’s smoked one joint too many.
Bat One - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
Your thought process is faulty, the intellectual equivalent of the ponderous old Soviet dialectic materialism that’s smoked one joint too many.
Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence.
FreeRepublicans.com - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
AND I AM…
CHOMSKY - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence.
Free, you’re the one here arguing against free markets. Bringing up Chomsky probably isn’t in your best interest right now.
Rob - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
Free, you’re the one here arguing against free markets. Bringing up Chomsky probably isn’t in your best interest right now.
I’m argueing against Free Trade, not Free Markets.
And is it so wrong to have read a book not written my Ann Coulter.
FreeRepublicans.com - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
Free, if you knew me you’d know that I am no Ann Coulter fan.
And how can you have a free market without free trade?
Rob - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
And how can you have a free market without free trade?
Do you have about 6 hrs?
We’ll have a fun time debating at the convention I’m sure.
The Market historically was given a locality. So a Free Domestic Market has nothing to do with Free Trade.
Now, I am not a Protectionist either. I would be along the lines, of again, Buchanan-like Fair Trade.
I dont think that our goods be tarriffed at 42% in China and theirs at 3% here.
I could go deeper but I have to talk to reporters.
FreeRepublicans.com - 01:02pm on 02/28/2006
Geez, and I thought tammi was confused.
2Hotel9 - 02:02pm on 02/28/2006
"Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence."
Your reference to Noam Chomsky is patently gratuitous… but then so is Chomsky.
As for sentence structure, if it will help with your comprehension, I’ll be happy to put my thoughts in simpler and less complicated sentences. A (Free) trade of sorts, perhaps. I’ll put more thought into simplifying the structure of what I say, if you’ll put some thought into the content of what you say.
What would the deal break for you be?
"What would the deal break for you be?"
Taken logically and objectively, that’s really a pretty dumb question. For most people, it would make far more sense to examine the facts as they are, evaluate them, and then make a determination as to the acceptability of the proposed outcome, rather than trying to list specific potential objections first, and then search for a reason to disapprove the deal.
Your thought process is faulty, the intellectual equivalent of the ponderous old Soviet dialectic materialism that’s smoked one joint too many.
Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence.
AND I AM…
Free, you’re the one here arguing against free markets. Bringing up Chomsky probably isn’t in your best interest right now.
I’m argueing against Free Trade, not Free Markets.
And is it so wrong to have read a book not written my Ann Coulter.
Free, if you knew me you’d know that I am no Ann Coulter fan.
And how can you have a free market without free trade?
Do you have about 6 hrs?
We’ll have a fun time debating at the convention I’m sure.
The Market historically was given a locality. So a Free Domestic Market has nothing to do with Free Trade.
Now, I am not a Protectionist either. I would be along the lines, of again, Buchanan-like Fair Trade.
I dont think that our goods be tarriffed at 42% in China and theirs at 3% here.
I could go deeper but I have to talk to reporters.
Geez, and I thought tammi was confused.
"Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence."
Your reference to Noam Chomsky is patently gratuitous… but then so is Chomsky.
As for sentence structure, if it will help with your comprehension, I’ll be happy to put my thoughts in simpler and less complicated sentences. A (Free) trade of sorts, perhaps. I’ll put more thought into simplifying the structure of what I say, if you’ll put some thought into the content of what you say.