Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $27,930
Woo hoo!! And the first 31% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Charles H. (The_r0nin)

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • City’s public schools join fight against ‘white power’

    07/24/2016 7:07:30 AM PDT · 52 of 66
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to atc23
    What do we call a self hating white? The blacks say “Uncle Tom” - white people need a phrase as well -

    Well, the term "cuck" is becoming popular on the intertubes. It's short for cuckold (a very old word for a man whose wife is cheating on him), but the connotation has morphed to describe a man who allows other men to sleep with his wife (out of subservience to her wishes and a desire to be a good male feminist). It's as good a word as any for the self-loathing liberal...

  • LIVE THREAD:RNC National Convention Day 3 July 20, 2016 starts @ 7pm ET

    07/20/2016 6:58:55 PM PDT · 2,100 of 3,398
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to SomeCallMeTim

    Very true. Cruz damaged himself badly here. Americans can forgive a loser. They don’t forgive sore losers...

  • Busted Flat: All-Too-Normal Activity Dominates the 'Ghostbusters' Remake

    07/10/2016 8:14:15 AM PDT · 13 of 54
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to freedomwinsout

    Uhhhh. No. The film started off with Ivan Reitman (the original director of the first Ghostbusters) producing and directing. Amy Pascal, a flaming feminist whose incompetence was laid bare by the Sony email hacks, disagreed with Reitman’s vision of the film (an ensemble cast that was handed the reigns by the surviving members of the original film [Murray and Acroyd] in a movie intended to be a sequel). She had Reitman removed and Feig brought in, with the understanding that the film would be a reboot, not a sequel, and that the cast would change to an all female one. Feig was an enthusiastic supporter of this change! He may have been saddled with an inferior script, but he has been front and center in portraying the criticism of the film as misogyny from “Trump-supporters.” Feig and Pascal are the prime movers of this flop! Read the hacked Sony emails...

  • Are 'Ghostbusters' Reviews Embargoed Until Opening Day?

    07/08/2016 11:48:21 AM PDT · 122 of 131
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to longfellow

    Moviebob is a giant SJW. Terms like “misogyny” and “sexist” fall off of his lips. He’s part of the problem, not the solution.

  • Are 'Ghostbusters' Reviews Embargoed Until Opening Day?

    07/08/2016 11:46:32 AM PDT · 121 of 131
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to cld51860

    Well, the Sony-Marvel films are a special case. When Marvel was going bankrupt, they sold the rights to X-Men, F4, and Spiderman to Sony to try and steady the ship. The rights came with stipulations that if Sony ever let the properties lapse (generally meaning if they went X amount of time without making a new movie based on the properties), the rights would revert to Marvel. So, every so often, Sony had to “reboot” the franchises, in order to kep the rights. See, they had the rights to the characters and some major storylines (Peter Parker’s origin, the X-Men and Magneto, etc.), but none of the newer storylines, villains and material. In fact, many comic book fans accused Marvel of publishing nothing but low quality rehashes of storylines in the X-Men comic books in order to sabotage potential Sony movie plotlines, so as to reclaim the IP once Sony stopped making movies.

    This is what happened to Spiderman. After the last reboot bombed, Sony gave up the extended rights to the character in films. This is why Spiderman could show up in Capt. America: Civil War... Marvel/Disney got the rights back.

    So Sony really had no options but to keep remaking the same movies. It was a stupid deal that stupid suits at Sony only made worse...

  • Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes banned from operating labs

    07/08/2016 7:09:24 AM PDT · 6 of 11
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Fhios

    It “saved millions and millions” because the tests didn’t work. They had a huge “false positive” rate, and missed many positive results. If you go in for medical testing, you’d like the tests you paid for to be more accurate than a shaman reading entrails.

    She knew they were bogus. She promoted them anyway. She is a fraud and should be in prison...

  • Hacker who claims he breached Clinton server pleads guilty, strikes deal with feds

    07/03/2016 9:46:50 PM PDT · 34 of 53
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to advertising guy

    No way. Blackmailing Hilary as President would be worth far more...

  • BREAKING: London tower block evacuated after massive explosion

    06/11/2016 10:42:30 AM PDT · 39 of 54
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to rickmichaels

    Ohhhh, oh! The guns of Brixton...

  • 6 Must-See Movies for Memorial Day

    05/30/2016 8:29:09 AM PDT · 64 of 109
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to rktman

    Taking Chance

    Period. This is the ultimate Memorial Day movie. If you haven’t seen it, you must.

  • Yes, Dropping Atomic Bombs On Japan Was A Good Thing

    05/28/2016 7:04:12 AM PDT · 45 of 142
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to schurmann

    No, the people on this thread who are arguing morality are not dunces; they are fools, and the exact kind that Jesus warns us about.

    What is the “law” (be it the “laws” of war or of... say ... adultery)? Slavish devotion to the law without consideration of the consequences is what is immoral. The law said a woman who slept with men who were not her legal first husband was guilty of adultery and should be stoned to death. But was that the most moral outcome? Was that His choice (the compassionate one)?

    Fools who babble about “just” war, about the primacy of principle in the face of human suffering and concerns, miss the entire point of Christianity (which is why they are fools...). “Just” war is the war that ends the quickest with the least loss of life. Don’t waste your time on them. Pearls before swine...

  • Pfizer’s Lethal Injection Drug Ban Raises Fears of Alternative Execution Methods in US

    05/15/2016 8:48:22 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to nickcarraway

    But Pfizer makes abortifacents.

    Simply put, this would end the moment the U.S. said, “Because of Pfizer’s actions, we will not longer be recognizing any of Pfizer’s patents. Anyone who wishes to make similar drugs, know that the US will not ban them or prosecute you.”

    It’s all about the money...

  • College Football lawsuit over sex "assault"

    04/25/2016 6:37:39 PM PDT · 30 of 33
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to PAR35
    He needs to look at transferring to Baylor. A sexual assault on one’s record is a plus to the athletic department there. University of Kansas might also be on his short list.

    Nah. He should apply to UNC. So long as he plays a sport, he won't even have to go to class...

  • No Safe Space to Shoot Up

    04/10/2016 7:48:55 AM PDT · 36 of 53
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Jonty30
    I will use Colorado as a citation. Are people towards harder drugs enmasse, a few don’t count, or are they generally satisfying themselves with low level, but legal, highs?

    Are they? "Citation needed" signifies a need for you to provide proof of your assertion. With documentation and quantification if you wish the response to be persuasive. You answered with another question...

  • No Safe Space to Shoot Up

    04/10/2016 7:22:37 AM PDT · 33 of 53
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Jonty30
    Most drug users, if they can get a little high, will satisfy themselves with that. Only a comparative few will still move on to illegal harder drugs.

    Citation needed.

    Drugs are a cultural and spiritual problem. People get high because it is a short-cut to pleasure. We live in a society of short-cuts and pleasure seeking. Legalizing weed won't fix that. The real solution is long, hard, and cultural in nature. That's why no one wants to do it... and people suggest short-cut fixes like legalization...

  • Air France stewardesses mutiny over order to wear headscarves

    04/03/2016 7:53:44 AM PDT · 43 of 54
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to servantboy777
    Ya know, not all French folks surrendered. They did have a pretty effective and stiff resisitance.

    It was a pretty amazing resistance, too. It's number of members almost quadrupled after the war was over...

  • Cruz says there’s risk Trump backers could bolt party

    03/31/2016 8:47:24 PM PDT · 163 of 328
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    Hillary’s plan is working perfectly! Just like her husband (who never got a majority of the vote), she knew she needed a Ross Perot-like spoiler to make her election inevitable. So someone (who I’m sure was connected to the Clintons) talks to Trump and tells him that he would be great as a protest candidate (and the run would be good for his brand). He’s been a moderate all his life (and a friend of the Clintons), so he seems like a good Ross Perot surrogate.

    Of course, neither she nor the GOPe could have foreseen the anti-establishment sentiment that made Trump a front-runner! And he has too much ego to just fold. So, in the end, Hillary is going to get what she wanted in the first place, a third-party candidate (or a large part of the electorate sitting home). And so many “smart” people have fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker...

  • Virginia Governor Vetoes Bill Designed to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

    03/31/2016 6:33:46 AM PDT · 55 of 55
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Salgak
    . . .and we can thank “Libertarian” Robert Sarvis for giving us Terry McAwful. . .

    Whenever a Clinton crony needs to win, they find a former lib to run as a conservative or 3rd party to siphon away votes. Yet no one ever seems to notice that play, no matter how many times they run it...

  • Why Did a Ted Cruz Super PAC Gave $500,000 to Carly Fiorina?

    03/30/2016 8:00:57 PM PDT · 31 of 42
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Yashcheritsiy
    So all you have is name-calling and what passes for your "logic." This despite the fact that a PAC, not being controlled by a candidate, can actually do whatever it pleases.

    So, basically, you've announced to the world what you are...

  • Why Did a Ted Cruz Super PAC Gave $500,000 to Carly Fiorina?

    03/30/2016 7:44:11 PM PDT · 29 of 42
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Yashcheritsiy
    Hush money so that her campaign manager wouldn't talk about her affair with Cruz.

    Prove it. You've made the accusation, now provide the documentation, witness statements, other concrete evidence that the Cruz campaign illegally conspired to violate election laws and directed the PAC to give the money to the Fiorina campaign.

    If you can't, then explain why you feel it is justified to spread innuendo and smears that you can't prove. Is your candidate so weak that you need to lie to help him or her?

  • Trump takes back pledge to support GOP nominee

    03/30/2016 8:08:41 AM PDT · 152 of 182
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Bryanw92
    The 11th Commandment was created in a time when a Republican and a Democrat were two very different critters.

    This right here shows that you don't know what you are talking about. It was made in a time when Bob Dole was "the tax collector for the welfare state" and Reagan was saddled with the moderate GHW Bush to placate the big government Rockefeller Republicans, whose only difference with the Democrats was how communist they wanted the Western world to be. The GOPe has been around for almost three-quarters of a century. Reagan was a great president because he could rally the people (both conservatives, moderates, Republicans, blue-dog Democrats) behind his ideas and policies. He didn't write off anyone. It was the cause of a few of his mistakes, but also the vast majority of his successes...

  • Trump takes back pledge to support GOP nominee

    03/30/2016 8:00:32 AM PDT · 150 of 182
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to springwater13

    The “plan” is coming together.

    Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote. He had Ross Perot (a genuine man, if deluded) to suck votes from the Republicans. Now Hillary is running, and she wants the same safety-net.

    So someone (who knows who... but I’ll bet that they can be traced back to a Clinton) goes to Donald Trump, who has been a moderate (at best) all of his life and says, “Donald, you need to get in to this race as a protest candidate. Not only will you show everyone that you could do it, it’ll be great for your brand!”

    So he gets in, but the wizards of smart in both parties underestimated two things: one, the level of outrage among the rank and file in the Republican party, and two, Trump’s ego. Once he was the front-runner, there was no way Donald was going to bow out or be satisfied with just being a protest candidate. So now he’s in it to win, and Hillary gets nervous.

    But, the GOPe is so afraid of him, they’re going to try to use various tactics to deny him the nomination. So then he denounces the party and runs 3rd party (or a write-in campaign), or his voters just stay home. And Hillary gets the win, just as was always planned...

  • Cruz: I am confident majority of Trump supporters will join me if he doesn’t get nomination

    03/29/2016 7:50:27 AM PDT · 70 of 166
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to BlackFemaleArmyCaptain
    Of course not. It's been the plan all along!

    Bill Clinton needed Ross Perot to win. Now that Hillary is running, the Clintons were using the same tactic. Only this time, because of the popular revolt in the base of the GOP, Trump can actually win the nomination (rather than just play 3rd party spoiler as intended), and has too much ego to sabotage his own campaign now that he thinks he can win. But when he doesn't win at a contested convention, his supporters will pull out and go write-in or 3rd party, and Hillary will have her win, just like she intended from the beginning. It's all going according to plan again...

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 7:09:43 PM PDT · 161 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Aria
  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 7:05:45 PM PDT · 149 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to EDINVA
    No, he has bragged about sleeping with married women. No one I have asked has ever been able to show me where he was repentant for doing so. He was boasting about his exploits, not "admitting" them as transgressions...
  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 7:02:32 PM PDT · 138 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Aria
    There was a news article that quoted Ben Carson as saying that Trump told him that he doesn't believe what he is saying in the press, that his actual positions are different. Given that I've read the Art of the Deal and that it is Trump's stated modus operandus, I believe it.

    Or, you can try to be a little less gullible...

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 6:58:49 PM PDT · 124 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Ray76

    “Most people” voted for Obama twice. Hardly the gold standard...

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 6:58:04 PM PDT · 122 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Cobra64
    Separate issue. Start new thread on a topic of Trump fidelity.


    You're not the posting authority here. There is a basic hypocrisy in attacking Cruz for an unproven unfaithfulness while excusing Trump for bragging about unfaithfulness (nowhere has anyone posted that he was sorry he did it. It's not like Trump is repentant. He was boasting about how many married women he slept with...).

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 6:53:20 PM PDT · 108 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Ray76

    How many political/PR campaigns have you run? I’ll second-guess when A) there’s some evidence aside from innuendo and tabloid speculation, B) when the tactic obviously costs him support from people who were actually going to vote for him in the first place (because Trump supporters don’t matter one bit... they were already lost votes).

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 6:48:18 PM PDT · 94 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Auntie Dem

    Exactly. Those who were ready to believe without proof aren’t going to be swayed...

  • Ted Cruz dodges question about whether he's 'always been faithful' to his wife ...

    03/28/2016 6:47:33 PM PDT · 90 of 622
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to FR_addict

    Doesn’t matter what he would have answered, some on FR would find a way to twist his words to “prove” it was an admission. He said the accusations were “categorically false” and people were complaining that his wording wasn’t convincing enough. He’s better off just ignoring it. The people who believe he did cheat (with no evidence to this point) will still believe no matter what. Anything else he says just gives the sleaze-mongers more ammo...

  • Rick Sanchez: #CruzSexScandal Takes Off As Senator Fails To Forcefully Deny Allegations

    03/28/2016 6:38:15 PM PDT · 31 of 55
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to drewh

    So, it’s been pointed out on multiple threads that those tweets are quotes from the movie Grease, and that the Cruz twitter handle lacks the green verified-by-twitter checkmark that Cruz has on his twitter account. So why do you keep posting this? Are you being paid to? Is innuendo all you have, or do you have proof of an affair? If you don’t have proof, are you willing to create a false image in order to help your candidate?

  • Justice Department cracks iPhone; withdraws legal action (Apple relieved....)

    03/28/2016 6:18:07 PM PDT · 5 of 18
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Ernest_at_the_Beach
    Could be legit.

    Could be psyops: "Look, we're gonna lose the court case. Let's at least claim we got in on our own, so that the Muzzies are unsure of whether or not we can read it..."

  • Sowell: Supreme Hypocrisy

    03/28/2016 5:59:24 PM PDT · 48 of 59
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to dsc

    Ehhh, I’ve asked the mods to delete my last post. There’s nothing to be gained by more snark, If you want to be offended by my previous posts, that’s your choice. Have a nice evening.

  • Sowell: Supreme Hypocrisy

    03/28/2016 5:30:15 PM PDT · 44 of 59
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to dsc
    That why you have your panties in a knot about it?

    Hey, you're the one who seems to be comfortable thinking like a "despicable leftist scoundrel," so you tell me. And if your ego is so fragile that my correction of your error caused you to be triggered, I'm sure there is a safe space available at the nearest public university that you could borrow...

  • Donald Trump: Ted Cruz ‘Bought the Rights’ to Melania’s GQ Photo

    03/28/2016 5:25:24 PM PDT · 44 of 89
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to FreeReign
    I've yet to meet a North American advocate on this forum. So why do you spread such misinformation?

    Because there are three kinds of Trump supporters on FR. The first are FReepers who like Trump's positions on the issues and believe that he will not be as beholden to the powers-that-be in Washington. I've had many productive discussions with them and have a lot of respect for them. It is partially because of them that I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee, though I don't trust his conversion enough to support him in the primary.

    Then there are the paid shills for Trump (hired social-media types). They spread misinformation, distort statements, and otherwise spam FR with constant posts. They are pretty easy to spot (check sign-on dates for most), and just as easy to dismiss.

    The third are the evangelical Trumpeters. They are so convinced that Trump is their savior that they can justify anything, no matter how false, vile, or nasty. They post pure bile and emotion, and are a waste of time to debate... as they refuse to do so (even if they were capable of it). You can draw your own conclusions which supporters are which...

  • Sowell: Supreme Hypocrisy

    03/28/2016 5:09:14 PM PDT · 40 of 59
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to dsc
    I don’t think so. That sounds like the kind of thing despicable leftard scoundrels invent.

    You would be incorrect, then. The backlash against Catholics (along with the nationalization of the church by Henry VIII) meant that all convents had been abolished in England by the time of Elizabeth I. So no one could have gotten to a nunnery, as they were officially banned. And before you respond with "But maybe Shakespeare was trying to be historically accurate for Denmark in Hamlet's time," it would be the first time for the Bard. He was notoriously anachronistic in his plays, emphasizing understandability for his contemporary audience. They had very different expectations than modern audiences do (or considering most "historical" movies nowadays... maybe not).

    Because of the anti-Catholic sentiment of the time, "nunnery" was a well-known slang for brothels. It described a place where only women lived, plus got in a Papist slur in the bargain. It shows up used that way in dozens of Elizabethan plays and texts, by many different authors. So you are categorically wrong.

  • Donald Trump Hires Paul Manafort to Lead Delegate Effort

    03/28/2016 4:52:32 PM PDT · 33 of 120
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to agondonter
    Don't expect anyone to actually think about your article very much... it might require them to consider that they might have been had. And people will go to great lengths to avoid recognizing their own errors.

    I said this a month ago. Look at history. Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote. But he was president twice, because a third party candidate helped to siphon enough Republican votes away for him to win. Someone went to Ross Perot (who I believe was genuine) and said, "You should run, DC is dysfunctional and you're just the man to fix it." So Perot runs and does nothing but elect Clinton.

    Now his wife is running. Someone goes to Trump and says, "You should run, show that you could have been president. It'll be great for your brand!"

    But whoever whispered in Trumps ear (and I can guarantee you that the chain leads back to a Clinton) misread the public, who were ready for an outsider. So rather than coming in second, declaring he had been robbed by the GOP, and running a third-party campaign to siphon votes and propel Hillary to the White House, Trump actually has the lead. And his ego won't let him fold. So both the GOP and the DNC have been hoist on their own petard.

    Now, when the first vote doesn't go to Trump in the convention, the GOPe will put forth a compromise candidate. Trump will run third party. Hillary will win, just like was originally planned...

  • Roger Stone: Ted Cruz Won’t Sue National Enquirer “Because The Allegations are Mostly True”

    03/28/2016 6:50:39 AM PDT · 139 of 143
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to goodwithagun
    Identitypoliticsbarbie tags all of her thread posts with bfac at the time of posting. She's probably paid by the amount of threads she posts. Remember when she was put in a timeout for only responding in Bible verses? It was so typical of our usual spammers that get zotted.

    That's the most disappointing thing about this primary season to me. Ever since campaigns discovered the power of social media and political webpages, Free Republic has been in the crosshairs for political operatives. Looking at FR's Alexa ranking (along with its success in pushing important information to conservatives, like the Dan Rather forgeries), we make a natural target for manipulation.

    Usually, FReepers spot it very quickly, even when it's not politically motivated (we can spot a green-eyed blonde deep in the Hurtgen forest...). But, for some reason, this election cycle has seen many long-time FReepers embrace the manipulators, solely because of the support for their chosen candidate. It doesn't take a genius to figure out CW's bias and motives, but BAFC is somehow baffling to them?

    We often call the Republican party the "stupid" party, and I would have asserted that it was because of the way that the leaders tried to curry favor with the media. But now I'm not so sure that the problem hasn't filtered down a ways. It seems to me that some here are so angry at the scum in Washington that they are willing to uncritically accept anyone or anything that promises a "quick fix" to the dysfunction there. The problem is that there are no magic bullets. Even if Trump is exactly who he says he is, he can't fix Washington during his term without doing more of the things that have broken it in the first place (like the usurpation of power by the executive through executive orders). But the past few generations have been trained to have short attention spans and to want all problems solved now... even if the solution won't actually work.

    The saddest thing to me is that so-called conservatives are so ready and willing to jettison principle and conservatism in a quick-fix jeremiad that is more about emotion than it is about reason. Emotion and hate are Democratic stapes; it's why their policies are always failures. Yet here we are, believing obvious paid shills like BAFC and letting them shape our decisions, rather than honestly thinking things through (like cui bono?).

    I hope I am wrong, but I fear there are going to be a lot of people who, when faced with the reality of their choices, are going to realize that they have been had. And hopefully, there will be someone there, on every post they make, to say, "Well, that's what you get for rushing forward based on your emotions..."

  • Washington Times columnist fired after confirming 2 of the now 8 Cruz mistresses [should be 5]

    03/27/2016 8:22:14 AM PDT · 49 of 128
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Balding_Eagle
    The sister-in-law story has also been debunked, just like the 3 "additional" women story.

    Funny, when this happened to Herman Cain last election, a number of FReepers were very vocal about how badly we damage our own best candidates by believing those that seek to harm us (the MSM, et al.) with little evidence. Now that it serves to (on the surface) help Trump by weakening one of his rivals, so many FReepers are willing to believe rumor and innuendo. Show me the proof. Not cherry-picked suggestions of an affair (like the bogus $500 thousand story, with no evidence it was hush money, just innuendo), but proof. There isn't any (yet). But we are so willing to jump on the bandwagon. Who else gets helped by tearing down the right wing of the party, hmmm?

    So far, there isn't any proof. But many of you are willing to be just as bad as Democrats so long as it helps your candidate. Explain how this circular firing squad helps create a conservative majority...?

  • BREAKING: 3 new women involved in Cruz Sex Scandal, total women now 8!

    03/26/2016 8:23:28 AM PDT · 641 of 724
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to BlackFemaleArmyCaptain; Jim Robinson

    Now that GodGunsGuts has been zotted, maybe those that spam trash on the other side might get the same treatment? It might lower the snarl level here if the obvious operatives got a time out. It’s hard to discuss the actual dangers facing our nation when all that we get is horse-race style shouting and spam on every thread. And I say this as someone who will pull the lever for Trump or Cruz or any constitutional conservative who will defeat Hillary. When was the last time we had a thread on candidates’ policies that got anywhere? Instead, it gets drowned in this...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 7:08:56 PM PDT · 184 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to Partisan Gunslinger

    Honestly, I think we are both wasting our time. Once you get like this person, more interested in winning an argument than in making sense or being factually correct, there’s nothing else to be gained.

    The positive thing is that we don’t have to worry about any economic competition from that front. The sad thing is, he probably votes...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 7:04:38 PM PDT · 182 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    BTW, let's get back to your original assertion. You are going to claim that a factory can be built anywhere, right? And that it will be just as competitive as any other, right? And that this supports your assertion that tariffs work differently for agriculture than for manufacturing, right? And that this means that tariffs won't work to depress production the way they have in the past, right? And that if you know the details of an industry or economic policy, you must work in it, right?

    I don't need to quote anything else on the stupid front...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:59:54 PM PDT · 179 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    So you are promoting an Al-Qaida-connected nerve gas factory as your poster child? Try building cars there (since that seems to be your ideal product as per above).

    Allow me to give you a bit of advice. Beware the First Law of Holes: "Once you are in one, stop digging..."

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:54:42 PM PDT · 176 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    If you can build a factory in Vietnam you can build one anywhere. 30 years ago the Chinese were backwards dung burning rice pickers. Now look what we gave them.

    Then your fame and fortune awaits! All you need to do is start building factories in sub-Saharan Africa. Might I suggest Zimbabwe as a particularly nice spot (uncontaminated by anything so handicapping as an industrial base to compete with you). What are you waiting for?

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:47:10 PM PDT · 171 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    You can build a factory pretty much any where in any the third world, regardless of how backwards the country seems to be.

    Thank you for providing the evidence that you asked for. You can build a factory anywhere? One without infrastructure? How will you power your third-world factory (I hear windmills are coming back in vogue)? How will you transport the raw materials and finished products without rail, trucks, or ships? How will you produce at a high rate of speed and skill with a population with a backwards culture and work ethic (part of the reason they are "third world" in the first place)? Factories are limited by "climate" as much as agriculture, except the "climate" isn't restricted to the weather.

    It is plain that you've never run a business that produces a tangible product. The situational hurdles are as real as poor soil and lack of rain. But hey, don't let any of that interfere with your simplistic worldview...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:39:15 PM PDT · 166 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to GenXteacher
    The problem with history is that it only happens once. You can say that there was a large amount of economic growth during particular points in the 1800s, but you can't say what those results would have been without tariffs, or with higher ones. Deciding that tariffs were the cause of economic growth at the time (rather than an impediment that didn't erase all of the economic gains), despite the fact that the US grew in size, scope, and population dramatically, means that you have reached a conclusion and are now cherry-picking evidence.

    With smaller tariffs, would the growth in the 1800s have been smaller or larger? Did they act as wings or as shackles? History can't tell us that. Only economic principles have guesses (and they aren't much better than that) as to the effect of any economic policies. And I haven't heard any economic principles here so far that couldn't be written on a matchbook... in crayon...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:28:17 PM PDT · 163 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va

    You are the same person who tried to assert that union labor costs would be comparable across different manufacturing processes. Now you are asserting that conclusions can’t be drawn across different products? Seems that logical consistency is not one of your strong suits. Besides, the effect of a tariff is on the importation of the product, not the manufacture of it. The manufacturing determines the limit to which a business can change its production to try and defeat the tariff... not on the effect of the tariff on the consumers...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:23:38 PM PDT · 157 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    The details you provided have given you away. You are clearly a consultant and free trade professional.

    So your defense here is that you are ignorant of the facts, and that anyone who isn't must be a party to the subject at hand? There's a winning strategy. If you aren't ignorant (like you), you're a shill.

    So anyone who knew the facts of the Treyvon Martin case must have been a cop? Anyone who knows about Hillary Clinton's email lies must work in the State Dept.? Anyone who can explain the FBI vs Apple case works for one or the other?

    Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone who would be a more desirable opponent for a free-trade advocate to have than you are. You make even the good arguments for tariffs seem stupid...

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 6:16:50 PM PDT · 153 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to GenXteacher
    Depends on how bad they want to dominate the market- if the domestic manufacturers sell for a lower price, they can make up for it in volume and soon put the foreign producers out of the domestic market altogether since demand will accrue to the lower price.

    Uhhh, tell me how that has worked for the sugar industry. In fact, Archer Daniels Midland has become an agricultural giant (and the primary force behind big-ag political payoffs and anti-competitive FDA regulations) because the tariff on sugar killed domestic sugar production, making the much less health high-fructose corn syrup the primary ingredient in many products (like soft drinks) that originally contained sugar. Far from "saving" sugar, high tariffs killed it.

    The problem most anti-free trade folks have is that reality doesn't obey simple black-and-white principles. Sometimes results are mixed, or the same thing that works one place is a disaster in another.

    One thing's for sure, I hope you don't "teach" economics....

  • 19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

    03/20/2016 5:27:11 PM PDT · 130 of 274
    Charles H. (The_r0nin) to central_va
    The union labor cost per car made in the USA is 8%. I doubt if anything manufactured in the USA is going to need more labor than a car assembly line.

    Talk about economic illiteracy! The average car costs ~$25,000. That means that $2000 dollars of that cost is union labor. What makes you think the cost will stay the same percentage for a different product? What if the dollar cost stays the same per worker? How many 10 cent widgets will make up for $2000 labor?

    Anyone who thinks cost scale linearly for all products has never run a business in their life. I'm not against some tariffs, but I am against stupid reasons... and yours is as stupid as they come...