- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Since I Couldn't Get SFP To Answer My Questions, I'll Ask the PT Board.....
Posted on 11/3/25 at 6:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/3/25 at 6:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes they were SURVEILED. That's an appropriate description
SFP actually thinks people fall for this sophistry
1
Posted on 11/3/25 at 6:48 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:Indeed.
sophistry
Posted on 11/3/25 at 6:53 pm to NC_Tigah
Pointing out dishonesty is the literal opposite of sophistry
Posted on 11/3/25 at 6:54 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
You and your stupid tariff takes.
These arent "my" takes. These are classic conservative beliefs based on actual facts.
Your Orange God is misleading you
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:13 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
These arent "my" takes. These are classic conservative beliefs based on actual facts.
You do realize prior to 1913 we were completely funded by tariffs right? Both dems and republicans, right?
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:22 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Your Orange God
That Orange God attended the Wharton School of Business, and ended up doing very well for himself.
Do you really think.he's some sort of rube who doesn't have an understanding of tariffs?
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:26 pm to Warboo
quote:
You do realize prior to 1913 we were completely funded by tariffs right?
This isnt 1913. The economy is totally different and trade is much less a zero sum game than it once was.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This isnt 1913. The economy is totally different and trade is much less a zero sum game than it once was.
Trade is trade Roger. The economic forces are different but the trade is the same. You adjust for trade imbalances. This is economics 101.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:46 pm to Warboo
quote:
Trade is trade Roger.
Do you think trade has a winner and loser? Or do you think both sides can win?
This post was edited on 11/3/25 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Do you think every trade has a winner and loser?
For the last 50 years? Yep.
Do you think there is way to equalize trade imbalances (winners or losers)?
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:49 pm to Warboo
quote:
For the last 50 years? Yep.
Then why would both parties engage in trade if one will lose? Wouldnt one party just not make that deal?
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:54 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Then why would both parties engage in trade if one will lose? Wouldnt one party just not make that deal?
A big portion of our 37T dollar debt is part of our government excepting “the deal”. The big boys in DC getting kick backs and the rest of us paying for it in more ways than one. That time is over.
Roger have you ever owned, operated, or managed a private business?
This post was edited on 11/3/25 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:55 pm to Warboo
quote:
Do you think there is way to equalize trade imbalances (winners or losers)?
Communism. Make everyone poor and trade will be more equal, too.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 7:56 pm to Warboo
quote:
A big portion of our 37T dollar debt
I thought we were talking trade imbalance
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Communism. Make everyone poor and trade will be more equal, too.
Oh yeah! There it is. So equalizing trade imbalances through trade measure such as tarrifs is now communism. Please share with the class how you came to that conclusion. I can not wait for this response.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I thought we were talking trade imbalance
We are. You may not be.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:04 pm to Warboo
quote:
So equalizing trade imbalances through trade measure such as tarrifs is now communism.
Uh, no.
Nice strawman, though.
The simple point went over your head, so I'll break it down for the level of a child.
Rich countries will have negative trade imbalances because they have more money to spend on goods from abroad.
Poor countries will have positive trade balances because they're poor and will be more likely to be exporters who can't afford expensive goods.
If you want to "fix" things, you need communism. That makes everyone poor. No more rich countries = fewer trade imbalances.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Oh My ........ now I understand why they say those things about you.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:10 pm to KCT
If you want SFP to engage with you, you have to first find something that interests him.
Ask if him of the FBI was right to break into Mar a Lago to sniff Baron’s boxers.
Ask if him of the FBI was right to break into Mar a Lago to sniff Baron’s boxers.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 8:15 pm to Rebel
quote:
If you want SFP to engage with you, you have to first find something that interests him.
Ask if him of the FBI was right to break into Mar a Lago to sniff Baron’s boxers.
I'm pretty sure I know where he stands on that.
This post was edited on 11/3/25 at 8:16 pm
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News