Replies

They used unreferenced numbers that are not verifiable by reasy means in support of questionable claims.

First of all, you are stuttering again. It must be a blood pressure thing. Unreadable posts make no points.

Second, all their numbers are all footnoted on their policy papers. If you don't have copies you can obtain them. If that's not easy enough for you, oh well. It doesn't mean they are lying, it means you are lazy.

Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints

It's not a debating society, they have no responsibility to present opposing viewpoints. You clearly have a skewed view of what a think tank does.

If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree.

So it's ok to bully anyone other than US citizens. Or even them if the "overall benefit" is to the USA? (in your opinion)

And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.

WE? You have a frog in your pocket?

Ah, the first shot in a brand new flame war. Here we go again. I guess the mods will be called again as soon as you get your A-- kicked again. Maybe you can give them a heads up now that you will soon be whining for posts to be removed. That way they can be ready with the delete button.

But the footnotes sometimes do not always lead anywhere or do not support the paraphrase or numbers supposedly quoted. I know it takes effort to check out but check it out.

Their scholarship is often on par with Belleslies(sp) on the gun debate.

It's not a debating society, they have no responsibility to present opposing viewpoints. You clearly have a skewed view of what a think tank does.

All I said in the first place is Cato institute is clearly advocating the anti-tariff position and as part of that advocacy presents skkewed data and unreliable numbers.

So it's ok to bully anyone other than US citizens. Or even them if the "overall benefit" is to the USA? (in your opinion)

The purpose of the US government is to protect americans and if that means "bullying" your term foreign governments so be it. It is not only okay it is the duty of the US government. IMHO and in teh opinion of most who support our government. Clearly that was the intent of teh Constitution as stated in the preamble.

Now as to being free to make any refernce we wish from that refusal since when in the USA does anyone have any right not to draw any inference they wish from a refusal to debate an issue? We meaning myself and anyone els ewho reads the post you wrote.

Please tell me what flame is implied. Your inference of a flame is your business. But that is not evidence of a flame. I wa spolite. I did not state a number of obvious inferences from a refusal to debate the details of a policy you disagree with.

Some reasonable inferences are:

You know you can not prevail. You do not have the time to devote to such a debate You do not wish to debate because you realize your beliefs may be shaken You do not feel you can control your temper in such a debate. Other perhaps less charitable inferences may also be freely drawn since I do not wish to start a flame war I will not state them.

Do you honestly think you have a right to determine what inferences people draw from your words. You control what you imply.

Now as to my typing errors that make it through to my posts since my business is using to much of my machine's memory for business tasks I am forced to forego word processor support most of teh time I posting while working. My apologies for that.

However I expect you to show where precisely I am starting a flame war. Since I have decided I will not start flaming any poster no matter how outragous teh flames they post. I made that decision last night.

Now as to your charcateization of our flame war I will state I do not admit starting it do not admit you were any kind I winner but will state that I did issue an apology to you to try and end it and keep the discussion issue ortiented.

Here is a link to the Cato institute's web site CATO please show where the footnote is on the economic article linked on the Front page for the following quote American companies invest less than $2 billion a year in China, and far less in India

I reiterate all their numbers are all footnoted on their policy papaers. Here we have a link from their homepage which contains no footnotes. Now I further note there is no distinction made about policy papers on theiur home page. Yes I have been in their refernce area and some of that data is good schalarship but the problem is when good schalarship that happens to support an agenda is included with some unrefernced works and some of that schlorship when one traces down the footnmates leads to an unreferenced work. I have presented a link that makes a claim on numbers that contains no refernce from the Cato institute website. i will clearly state not all teh scholarship presented on their wevbsite is bad. Clearly they have some good schalarship that is totally supportive of their stand but that does not imply that because a number comes from teh Cato institute taht it should be trusted.