What a Fascist sounds like when he opens his mouth

[Zzarchov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

Estimated cost on the Wheat Board is impossible with any kind of accuracy, after all, if we could read the future we wouldn't need a Wheat Board. If current trends continue its cost is Zero.

In 2003 the WTO did rule the Wheat Board wasn't a subsidy, but has since overturned the ruling. Even still, considering how heavily EU and US farms are subsidized, it isn't a problem.

If you want information, google it.

 

[BitWhys]

...
If you want information, google it.

oh hell no. I'd rather see you back up your claims.

...except with western farm subsidies so much larger than this, its not the top of the list...

proof?

retract?

content to just make stuff up and hope no one notices?

 

[BitWhys]

Since you were able to compare, how about just the numbers on how much you think the Treasury Board guarantees, then? I'd LOVE to see one of THOSE studies.

 

[Zzarchov]

oh hell no. I'd rather see you back up your claims.



proof?

retract?

content to just make stuff up and hope no one notices?

Actually I did show you the information. The EU alone is 44% of a 40 billion Euro budget in food subsidies.

BUT

Since you said you're tax dollars would be forced to pay for this, page one.

Perhaps you'd either like to back up that claim or retract it? Or are you gonna make up numbers and hope no one notices?

 

[BitWhys]

...The EU alone is 44% of a 40 billion Euro budget in food subsidies...

The EU pays subsidies to western farmers?

I don't think so.

you need a link to the Gazette that states Part III guarantees will be maintained?

 

[Zzarchov]

The EU pays subsidies to western farmers?

I don't think so.

you need a link to the Gazette that states Part III guarantees will be maintained?

Thats funny, I guess they pay their subsidies to middle eastern farmers then?

Here I thought that when a western organization contributes 44% of its 40 billion Euro budget to farm subsidies, it might go to the farmers in the western world which comprise it.

My bad, seriously? You honestly doubt this?

EDIT:

Sidenote: You still haven't shown YOUR numbers that you claimed on page 1.

 

[BitWhys]

Thats funny, I guess they pay their subsidies to middle eastern farmers then?

Here I thought that when a western organization contributes 44% of its 40 billion Euro budget to farm subsidies, it might go to the farmers in the western world which comprise it.

My bad, seriously? You honestly doubt this?

EDIT:

Sidenote: You still haven't shown YOUR numbers that you claimed on page 1.

I didn't claim any numbers. You're the one that's fighting tooth and nail to keep the guarantees in place. If there's no numbers to worry about as you insist then cut the purse strings from Part III because they aren't needed.

So which is it?

1) I'm wrong about Part III ever being used and Strahl can drop the clause or
2) I'm right about taxpayer's dollars getting sucked into the system

I never made any claims about amounts or even relative amounts but of the latter you did and have yet to provide anything relevant to support it.

That sort of western? :lol: Fine. I can work with that.

The incoming barley division of Cargill is bound take exception to being out-bidded by a state-run enterprise that uses public funds to leverage advantage in the market. Chapter 11 NAFTA. Government policy cannot discriminate within a sector. So far its not a problem because there's no one else allowed in the sector. Thanks to Strahl's Fascism (ie. a government business entitiy competing directly with privately owned business entities), that's going to change.

and Cargill isn't going to back down because the EU is dumping grain in Africa.

 

[Zzarchov]

1.) You did claim you would have to pay your tax dollars. Thus you are claiming you would have to pay.

2.) I fail to see how you presenting a false choice for me to select means anything.

Im claiming its protectionism and not any form of fascism, a claim your making to engage in sensationalism.

Subsidies take taxpayer money, they are used when a level playing field is bad for us. Cause push comes to shove, you take your fairness and shove it. Life aint fair.

So apparently you got a fairly large problem here.


You claim this isn't protectionism, its fascism. I say its protectionism and that predates fascism and that even if fascism engages in it, that is irrelevant as fascism engages in many things that all states (fascist or not) engage in.

Then you refer to it as protectionism itself, and still claim I am wrong and that it isn't protectionism (which you are calling it as you say im wrong)

You then look at relevant numbers, note them, respond to them, ignore your own relevant numbers and Im guessing you can't keep a straight face, claim im not using any.

 

[BitWhys]

I already said just because a policy is protectionist doesn't mean its not Fascist.

 

[Zzarchov]

So show how it is Fascist then, merely being protectionist does not make it fascist. You claimed it was fascist and not protectionism. So while it can indeed be both protectionist and fascist, you'll have to show how its being used to increase fascist tendancies. To me, the opening of the monopoly would seem to be weakening it.

 

[BitWhys]

What Strahl is creating being "it", I never said "it" was not protectionism. I've said its extraneous and I'll say again that Fascism and protectionism are not diametrically opposed to each other.

Tendencies?

The Wheat Board is currently a democratically chosen cooperative competing exclusively on the international market on farmer's behalf and not against agents within its domain. The Wheat Board will by design become one among many entities and begin competing against privately owned business within our borders and you call that a weakening of Fascist "tendencies". Give me a break.

You DO understand that Fascism characteristically involves the blurring of the distinction between government and private enterprise and that what Strahl is up to eliminates that distinction altogether, right?

 

[Zzarchov]

Strawman. I never said a word about protectionism, a topic which is totally extraneous to the demand-side fiddling Strahl is implementing. stop wasting space.

What Strahl is creating being "it", I never said "it" was not protectionism. I've said its extraneous and I'll say again that Fascism and protectionism are not diametrically opposed to each other.

So, there is one place you've been caught up in your own double speak.

Tendencies?

The Wheat Board is currently a democratically chosen cooperative competing exclusively on the international market on farmer's behalf and not against agents within its domain. The Wheat Board will by design become one among many entities and begin competing against privately owned business within our borders and you call that a weakening of Fascist "tendencies". Give me a break.

Not against agents within its domain? Then why is it paying drastically below market prices to gain increased profit?

And what privately owned businesses will it be competing against? The ones who before didn't exist?

Give me a break, its weakening state control to give private business more access to otherwise state controlled rescources.

You DO understand that Fascism characteristically involves the blurring of the distinction between government and private enterprise and that what Strahl is up to eliminates that distinction altogether, right?

No, what he's doing expands upon that distinction. Before there was just the government, it WAS the owner of private individuals hard work, now you can choose to never deal with the government. Thus the line is less blurred.

Don't worry, im sure you're revisionist history will patch things up. Perhaps next you can claim you never said this was fascism at all?

 

[BitWhys]

So, there is one place you've been caught up in your own double speak.

I commented additionally on protectionism between the two quotes you chose to highlight so the first statement is true as is the second. You are being willfully deceiptful.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well, the record is there.. lets see

"You say Fascism"

"I say, protectionism predates fascism, even if fascism incorporates it"

" You say this is not protectionism and has nothing to do with the matter at hand"

"I explain how its protectionism"

"You call it protectionism,"

"I ask you if you then agree that you were wrong before"

"Then you claim you never said it wasn't protectionism"

"I point out you are lying and show where you did say it wasn't protectionism"

"You say im trying to decieve people with the truth".

Thats the recap.

 

[BitWhys]

...
" You say this is not protectionism"...

now you're flat out lying.

 

[Zzarchov]

I believe I showed you the quote, yep, yes I did. I showed the very quote.

Strawman. I never said a word about protectionism, a topic which is totally extraneous to the demand-side fiddling Strahl is implementing. stop wasting space.

I bolded the point where you said it was not protectionism.

 

[BitWhys]

ex·tra·ne·ous (ĭk-strā'nē-əs)

adj.

1. Not constituting a vital element or part.
2. Inessential or unrelated to the topic or matter at hand; irrelevant. See synonyms at irrelevant.
3. Coming from the outside: extraneous interference.

In other words, protectionism is beside the point.

 

[Zzarchov]

yes, so the matter could not be a form of protectionism, if protectionism is beside the point.

Would you like to agree with me some more while acting like you were right all along?

 

[BitWhys]

yes, so the matter could not be a form of protectionism, if protectionism is beside the point.

Would you like to agree with me some more while acting like you were right all along?

8O

ye gods...

 

[Zzarchov]

Thats not really any form of rebuttal.

Its pretty clear cut you've shifted viewpoints considerably.