(August 9, 2018 at 11:55 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: The issue isn't about whether you can stick your head in the sand (I assume you do), but whether you should. The Constitution isn't a damn government auto-pilot setting. The framers envisioned an educated, engaged citizenry.

LOL - the framers reserved the Senate and the President for the state elites, not the citizenry. Things have changed since then, but don't think that the framers had a ton of faith in the citizenry.

(August 9, 2018 at 10:57 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 10:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I'm not real sure of my facts here, but didn't the U.S. just effectively provide subsidies to U.S. businesses and corporations via a tax cut?  If so, your complaint about Canada's trade practices seems a little hypocritical.

The US corporate rate is still higher than the effective Canadian rate.

That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 10:57 am)alpha male Wrote: The US corporate rate is still higher than the effective Canadian rate.

That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

Er, yes, it absolutely does. What happened to you? You used to be better than this.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

Er, yes, it absolutely does. What happened to you? You used to be better than this.

No, it doesn't. (Says the person whose only response to Min and me were a bunch of tu quoque arguments. What the fuck happened to you? Oh that's right. Nothing.)

(August 9, 2018 at 11:59 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 11:55 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: The issue isn't about whether you can stick your head in the sand (I assume you do), but whether you should. The Constitution isn't a damn government auto-pilot setting. The framers envisioned an educated, engaged citizenry.

LOL - the framers reserved the Senate and the President for the state elites, not the citizenry. Things have changed since then, but don't think that the framers had a ton of faith in the citizenry.

Right: a republic, not a democracy. But this isn't a question of faith in people. They were right to distrust the alleged wisdom of the people. Hell, they would have even less faith in the people if they could see what a sorry bunch of morons we've become -- in part because of our dependence on social media to get "news". The point stands: they envisioned an educated and engaged citizenry.

Remember Franklin's response when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had fashioned: A republic, if you can keep it. It's hard to do that with word of mouth education on public affairs.

*shrug* You don't give a shit. So be it.

Typical conservative ethics. When Canada provides a cash infusion to its businesses through subsidies, it's wrong. But when we provide cash infusions to business through a tax cut, well that's right as rain. What the fuck is wrong with you?

(August 9, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Right: a republic, not a democracy. But this isn't a question of faith in people. They were right to distrust the alleged wisdom of the people. Hell, they would have even less faith in the people if they could see what a sorry bunch of morons we've become -- in part because of our dependence on social media to get "news". The point stands: they envisioned an educated and engaged citizenry.

Remember Franklin's response when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had fashioned: A republic, if you can keep it. It's hard to do that with word of mouth education on public affairs.

And yet you admit that the newspapers of the time were partisan rags.

How did the citizenry of the time get accurate information?

Are you aware that senators weren't originally elected by the people?

---

(August 9, 2018 at 12:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Typical conservative ethics.  When Canada provides a cash infusion to its businesses through subsidies, it's wrong.  But when we provide cash infusions to business through a tax cut, well that's right as rain.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing's wrong with me. I simply have the common sense to see that a tax cut in the US which results in a rate which is still higher than Canada's does not result in a competitve advantage for US businesses.

US businesses are relatively worse off, but not as bad as before the tax cut.

You somehow see less worse off  as if it were better off.

Is this because you're really that stupid, or because you have partisan blinders on?

Based on some of your past posting, I'm thinking the latter. I don't think you're that dumb.

---

On another note:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Typical conservative ethics.  When Canada provides a cash infusion to its businesses through subsidies, it's wrong.

I haven't said it's wrong, as I don't see it as a moral issue. If Canada wants to prop up a dying industry with tax dollars, that's their business. If we respond, that's our business.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Typical conservative ethics.  When Canada provides a cash infusion to its businesses through subsidies, it's wrong.  But when we provide cash infusions to business through a tax cut, well that's right as rain.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing's wrong with me. I simply have the common sense to see that a tax cut in the US which results in a rate which is still higher than Canada's does not result in a competitve advantage for US businesses.

US businesses are relatively worse off, but not as bad as before the tax cut.

You somehow see less worse off  as if it were better off.

Is this because you're really that stupid, or because you have partisan blinders on?

Based on some of your past posting, I'm thinking the latter. I don't think you're that dumb.

I never said it resulted in a competitive advantage. I said it was hypocritical. Jesus, straw men and tu quoque arguments. And you're saying that I used to be better.

Quote:hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Right: a republic, not a democracy. But this isn't a question of faith in people. They were right to distrust the alleged wisdom of the people. Hell, they would have even less faith in the people if they could see what a sorry bunch of morons we've become -- in part because of our dependence on social media to get "news". The point stands: they envisioned an educated and engaged citizenry.

Remember Franklin's response when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had fashioned: A republic, if you can keep it. It's hard to do that with word of mouth education on public affairs.

And yet you admit that the newspapers of the time were partisan rags.

How did the citizenry of the time get accurate information?

Are you aware that senators weren't originally elected by the people?

Yes.

They generally didn't.

Of course, but thanks for the remedial civics lesson.

Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $35.6 billion from 1995-2016.

https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips...de=soybean