Would Lincoln support the WTO and NAFTA today?

[Anarchist420]

I think he would, because he was a corporatist and he was against free trade. In his day, protectionism wasn't about protecting american workers it was about protecting big business.

He would never support free trade, but I don't think he would support the tariffs he did when that's not incredibly mercantilist on today's scale.

After all, the WTO is Hamiltonian and Wilsonian, but not Jeffersonian and not Jacksonian.

 

[Thump553]

No. He's dead.

 

[Anarchist420]

You know what I meant.

 

[JEDIYoda]

who cares??

 

[Brainonska511]

Would Anarchist420 make a thread that isn't idiotic?

No, I don't think he would. As if he just bangs his head against a brick wall on a daily basis, he always has 'fresh' ideas to throw at the denizens of P&N.

He would never support making an intelligent thread, merely cutting and running after being called an idiot and proven wrong repeatedly.

His ideas are naive and, frankly, moronic; they are not intelligent or thought-provoking.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Who gives a fuck, he's dead.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Only if he could keep The Confederacy out of NAFTA.

 

[Infohawk]

No. He's dead.

/Thread.

That is all the response that A420 deserves.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Would an original Confederalist give serious thought to Anarchist's musings or just grab the nearest musket and blow his head off?

 

[Anarchist420]

Would an original Confederalist give serious thought to Anarchist's musings or just grab the nearest musket and blow his head off?

Well, I have no ancestors who I know of who fought for the union, and all of the ones I know of who served a state, served for the CSA, so I don't think they'd want to blow the head off of a potential son of theirs.

Also, based upon the fact that the closest person (Schadenfroh) to an original Confederalist (Antifederalist) who replied to me was the only one who gave a decent answer, I'd say the former. I hope he doesn't want to blow my head off, but I guess he can if wants to.

Everyone else who answered seems more like a Federalist to me from observing their posting history. LOL.

Seriously though, I had just been wondering if anyone could give a rebuttal to argument that he was actually corporatist first (i.e., favored managed trade) and a protectionist 2nd.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I have no ancestors who I know of who fought for the union, and all of the ones I know of who served a state, served for the CSA, so I don't think they'd want to blow the head off of a potential son of theirs.

Also, based upon the fact that the closest person (Schadenfroh) to an original Confederalist (Antifederalist) who replied to me was the only one who gave a decent answer, I'd say the former. I hope he doesn't want to blow my head off, but I guess he can if wants to.

Everyone else who answered seems more like a Federalist to me from observing their posting history. LOL.

Seriously though, I had just been wondering if anyone could give a rebuttal to argument that he was actually corporatist first (i.e., favored managed trade) and a protectionist 2nd.

Why would we waste more time rebutting your arguments when you simply abandon your threads after being owned?

Ever stop to think why your threads elicit such a poor response?

 

[Anarchist420]

How did I abandon this thread?

Also, being owned is subjective.

 

[her209]

No. He's dead.

I was going to post the same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

How did I abandon this thread?

Also, being owned is subjective.

I'm talking about the dozens of other threads that you shit up this board with.

 

[quikah]

who cares??

This.

Why are you always living in the past? This is not a history forum. You want to talk about the WTO and NAFTA? talk about current events, talk about why you think WTO is causing problems TODAY.

(sorry for feeding the troll, but I kind of enjoy these threads )