Thanks, Luigi

With goatee?

That's horrifying

Free trade equals economic slavery?

Where is the logic in that?

Are you willing to listen to our explanations?

... I like the part where you were given reasoning to start out with, and then discarded the reasoning in order to substitute your strawman, and then asked where the reasoning is

that's quite impressive, really

Ya

I'm just taking what you said @zahlman

er, which part, I think you're getting people mixed up now

is this how it works?

gimme a sec

For me, "economic freedom" on a global scale means that all nations can trade with each other with little to no restrictions. This means that regional differences in prices are esentially meaningless in such a large market, and so nations are essentially locked in to producing whatever creates the greatest GDP. So a nation with lots of fertile land is going to produce cash crops to sell on the international market and use the profits to buy food from somewhere else. If a nation did anything less than maximize their GDP, they would be outcompeted by other nations in the market and subjugated by economic means

Essentially, nations are locked into producing certain things by the current prices of the market and general economic pressure

I see

they don't want to have to compete with others

I get that the global economy produces the most economically efficient solutions on a global scale via market pressure, but it also creates extremely unbalanced systems that border on global monopolies

rather stay primitive & backwards

> produces the most economically efficient solutions

not even necessarily this, considering the overhead of transportation

like Islam

transporting goods also has environmental consequences

At the end of this, every nation produces exactly one product to sell on the market, and essentially holds a gun to the head of the world. If Neo-USA stops producing the worlds supply of planes, nobody has planes, thusly everyone is enslaved to the USA. And everyone is enslaved to each other via resource production

@zahlman That's why I said "economically" efficient.

They're not resource efficient by any means

makes sense

So I'm not denying the benefits of globalization, but there are downsides to it.

https://youtu.be/6yqA6-ukmfg

https://youtu.be/qcXtYXUCOMY

As a classical liberal, you should watch these.

**@Pepe** was cleansed from the server.

Ok, so that first one, everything they said was technically correct

But costs ARE passed on to other nations via externalities

Could be environmental costs from production, health costs from pollution, whatever, because the global economy is global, the costs and benefits are going to be spread around

And obviously less powerful nations, economic or otherwise, have less means available to protect themselves from those negative consequences

Can't get enough of that sweet sweet division

@Edgy_Username The anti-white crowd has been out in force on twitter

Bringing out the old "whites are domestic terrorists" thing again

The whole internets a shithole the now

Folk on Reddit saying that free speech should be limited and all tha anti-White stuff on Twitter

Doesn't that mean Trump is successfully stopping Muslim terrorists from killing?

Blame the leftists

We just want to be white in peace

Checkmatey democrats

At this point, I think universal sufferage is incompatible with America

It's not functioning so good with so many fucking voices voting in opposite directions

*suffrage

You realize there are more terrorist acts committed by whites than any other in America right?

Which means he's stopping the radical Islamic terrorists from attacking.

Two scoops, two genders, two terms, baby.

This is what gets underreported

How do you recommend we fix that then?

Whites are the majority of the population, so nothing's out of the ordinary there, statistically.

He probably wants equality of terrorists.

Have a quota.

Let's make sure half of terrorists are black, half are arabic, half are asian, half are mexicans....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/

So, even that bottom graph says that islam did more than everyone else combined

Obviously a lot of people died on 9/11

Is this one of those graphs that conveniently starts after 9/11?

Wasn't that politifact article debunked because they left out some incidents to make their case?

his point is that it's a little hypocritical that we have massive media coverage and patriot acts dedicated to one group but the other is generally unspoken, and things like "both sides" probably/definitely wouldn't ever be said about muslim terrorists

im pretty sure that the US has the least restrictions on trade than any other nation

so the idea that by doing tariffs we're not participating

is a bit silly

Or from the fallout of it

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25885/

>62 people in U.S. killed by Islamic terrorists for every one killed by right-wing extremists

i think i'd rather crucify myself than read a college fix article about a professor with debunk written in all caps

however i did anyway....

>Is this one of those graphs that conveniently starts after 9/11?

yes, it says so explicitly at the top

Until the Orlando nightclub shooting, "the number of deaths caused by far-right-wing attacks outnumbered those caused by jihadism-related attacks," Ford said.

@DanielKO They've also included some oddball incidents as "far-right"

>“Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.'”

The "2003 Salinas, Calif. Abudction, Torture, and Murder" was two hispanics killing a bisexual

also >implying radial islam isn't "far-right"

Dunno how that's similar to the actual skinheads they've cited selewhere

"The terrorist threat in the United States is almost entirely homegrown, as no foreign terrorist organization has successfully directed and orchestrated an attack in the United States since 9/11,"

Yeah, it only took ONE incident to change that balance

per capita islamic terrorism is probably worse

```“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.```
well duh
```Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the Holtcreation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.```
i'm not sure if the best point he could've made here is imply that homeland security is completely incompetent at stopping right-wing terrorism

They have the same goals as white nationalists

ONE islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a single incident, but it took 14 years for "far right" "terrorism" to approach the same figure

And I'm supposed to consider Islamic terrorism LESS of a threat?

What a surprise, after a massive Islamic terrorism attack, strict defense policies are put into place to try to stop more Islamic terrorism attacks. This retard thinks that, since fewer attacks happened after that, it means that Islamic terrorists aren't a threat.

They've killed more people in less incidents

Dude, it's exactly the opposite.

Except the TSA has never prevented anything

Underwear bomber

Not one to defend TSA, but still.

Gotta give it to em you do something you do it right

Their value is also mostly deterrence, rather than active prevention

The TSA will always end up killing more people than it will ever save

@Edgy_Username Exactly, am I supposed to consider a bunch on unrelated skinheads committing armed robbery a serious national threat?

Know why?

@Deleted User Who the fuck has the TSA ever killed?

the entire point is that you wouldn't find out if they did prevent something from happening

@banestrum his fee fees