"Holocaust denier" is a cliche used to mock people who reject common knowledge.

Slavery is an organized institution which screws a bunch of people so the top 1% can make a buck. The 'foreign cheap labor' agenda.

You should agree with it, southern Democrat free-traders use to use this line 150 years ago, in defense of slavery.

Selling your country out for a buck.

Behold, the 'holocaust denier' thinks the slaves didn't earn money.

Actually people who say the Constitution 'should' be interpreted also say it is a living document. Libertarians and Democrats say that the most. Like you.

Show me one nation which unilaterally decides to remove all tariffs and import restrictions. You deny reality.

Show me one nation which unilaterally decides to remove all tariffs and import restrictions. You deny reality.

The powers of naturalization, international trade, and tariffs belongs to Congress. YOU LIBERTARIANS think that companies should be able to hire whoever they want, trade with whoever they want, and not pay any tariffs. You free-traders think Companies have extra-Constitutional rights, over Congress.

You have a problem with the Constitution, you have a problem with the US.

You deny what you said earlier.

You free-traders have nothing but glowing love for China. How wonderful China is. How great it is to do business in China. How much $$$$$ you can make off the cheap labor there.

You deny your motives.

Definitions of slavery on the Web:

work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Describes when some individuals are owned by others as their property.
Glossary of terms (Chinese Communist citizens are the property of the Communist state)

the system of one person "owning" another
Kentucky Civil War Vocabulary Words (I just 'owned you', slave.)

Then why did the Southern states secede under threat of a higher tariff from Lincoln? You deny reality. You deny logic. You deny common sense. You deny what you say 1 minute earlier.

February 26, 2007
Free Trade and Funny Math

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Ron Paul's (free-trader) spam machine is actually more involved:

Ron Paul Poll Experiment Results | Malagent's Domain

Karl Marx delivered this address before the Democratic Association of Brusels, 9 January, 1848

Karl Marx / On the Question of Free Trade

Ron Paul isn’t interested in opening foreign markets, the only thing Ron Paul is interested in is removing all US trade barriers.

Ron Paul thinks it saves the consumer money to purchase items made by cheap foreign labor. Ron Paul is wrong. Consumer items from China are just as expensive as ‘Made In America’. I still haven’t seen one example of how ‘Made In China’ is drastically cheaper then ‘Made In America’, especially at the cost of high paying manufacturing jobs.

The Chinese government through internal taxes and export tariffs on outgoing goods, marks up the price. (They get to purchase a 1st world military in the process, real stupid. Really really stupid and shortsighted.)

The company in China which manufactures the goods, marks up the price.

The warehouse which receives the items at the docks, marks up the price.

Meanwhile Joe 6-pack Republican wonders why taxes on the rich would hurt the American worker if capital is only used to invest in foreign countries and foreign workers.

Free-trade (with cheap labor as the only object) is destroying the Republican Party. Republican voters have already recoiled in horror, shouting with one voice, against Amnesty AND the guest worker proposal. The immigration issue is all about cheap foreign labor and Joe 6-pack knows it.

Keep your retarded posts to yourself, please.Well, since you have not proven anything yet, I'm going to ignore your posts. Things you have not proven but have said:

"Even black slaves earned money, they just didn't earn much. Brush up on your history."

"the free-traders think the Constitution should be "interpreted", it is a "living document." "

"You deny that all nations on the planet throw up tariffs, for their own selfish interests."

"You deny the basic reason NAFTA and WTO exists."

"You disagree with the wisdom of the founding fathers,"

"You...then turn around and praise Communist CHina."

Just some of the things you have not yet proven. Some you probably won't prove ever.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

YouTube - ABC News Coverage of 'The Great NAFTA Debate,' 1993

^^^^Who the free-traitors sleep with: Algore.

What's wrong with Ron Paul is that he is an inconvenience to the neo-con wing of the Republican Party, who utter words of peace and limited gov't and fiscal responsibility, while they chart the way for aggressive wars, the largest expansion of the federal gov't in decades and have doubled the debt, which should clock in at around $10 trillion by January 2009. Meanwhile Ron Paul has backed up his words with action his entire career.

He's such a splendid find this primary season, the only candidate who doesn't make you feel like you must settle for the lesser of two evils.

Of course Ron Paul wouldn't be able to downsize the gov't as much as he'd like, but to stop the illegal wars and do away with the torture prisons, while getting troops out of Germany and Japan and elsewhere to secure our own borders first, and then getting rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security would be a pretty successful year for all of us. Those moves would make us safer while it would reduce our out-of-control spending.

How ironic that this Republican, pitted against Hillary let's say, would actually be able to take the high ground by saying she voted for the war, not him. He would invalidate all the arguments that people have against the neo-con controlled Republican Party at the moment.

And he would still get his ass kicked.

Only in your scenario, he's get his ass kicked by a girl...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Americans like WINNERS, Ron Paul isn't one.

__________________
What you don't know, won't hurt you nearly as bad, as what you think you know that ain't true.

I guess you have a point. To be a winner in America, one often has to be a piece of shit liar like Bush.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Or, Paulites are too stupid to realize that in order to shrink the goverment, you have to physically remove Democrats from office. In order to do that, you don't piss off tens of millions of Americans by shipping their jobs overseas and turning them into Democrat voters for life.

Only a nut would think getting rid of policing powers would make people safer.

This is the same nutty arguments I have heard Democrats make on transportation, "Well if you build more roads, it will just make traffic worse, more cars will drive the roads." Then the morons vote against any transportation funding, and force feed all the money into light rail.

Libertarians and Democrats are both counter-intuitive through and through, "Well if we just get rid of the cops, it will make us safer."

You don't make any sense.

Under Bill Clinton, America increased the number of cops in America. Drastically.

I've never heard anyone ever say that if we build more roads, it will make traffic worse. Complete crap. Who'se ever said that?

Getting rid of Homeland Security should be done immediately. Could never have imagined that under a conservative president that they would expand the federal gov't to such a ridiculous degree that there is now a whole entire part of the gov't that is in business to help co-ordinate the CIA, the FBI, and FEMA and other huge federal agencies. Billions of additional dollars of taxpayers money being wasted on a venture that still isn't up and running and leaves people to wonder what it is they actually do.

Homeland Security before 9/11 would not have prevented it from happening. Good police and investigative work would have. It's that simple.

You can't call yourself a conservative any longer and be for huge gov't overreaching and expansion that is unnecessary and wasteful.

So you can say whatever you want Paleo, you're obviously a big gov't neo-liberal fascist who thinks that America ought to control every other nation instead of working with them. That's not a conservative ideal, and what this new generation of conservatives is doing is actually along the liberal-fascist lines.

Don't the neo-cons even know that they aren't new or conservative in any way?

So what you're saying is we need to dump our beliefs? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of getting into office?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.