Frankly, it was not "in kind". Your response simply was lame.
He is the one who advocates leaving individual citizens to be abandoned by the US Govt.
Quite the contrary. I believe that, in the future, nations we have no bilateral trade reciprocity with...puts the "individual" whether they be real OR corporate "on notice" that they are "on their own"...and have to accept that risk accordingly...or not. It's up to them. But the U.S. will neither subsidize nor guarantee globalism. At all. Anymore.
when dealing with foreign markets, but believes a 50% punitive tariff on all goods coming out of a particular country is the solution when a corporation gets in trouble.
Note, he apparently doesn't think that corporations or Nations...such as ours...are comprised of "individuals." Or that these are the only entities involved in international trade. Last I looked, a lot of "individuals" or "partnerships" engage in such trade.
Note also how this implies that LexBaird doesn't seem to believe we...as the People of the United States...have the right to ever tariff any nasty countries that need to be specially treated..., countries that just might be military threats, countries that are already engaged in predatory practices damaging to America, its People and our interests as a whole...
The quote is pulled from a question to him (which he has declined to answer), as to why he wants protection for corporations, but not flesh and blood citizens.
False. You were answered. But of course, I see you need it repeated. There is no such distinction.
The phrasing was a mirroring of the hyperbolic language he used to address me.
Really? Sounds to me like your notion of hyperbolic...is out of the norm. When you are confronted with logical dissent...in your imaginary world it appears to be hyperbolic. But when you go hyperbolic...for real...that is merely "mirroring" the one who busted you? If you were doing so...no one but you seems to have been aware of it Lex. And frankly, you failed to put the [ /sarcasm ] flag out for us supposedly unwashed benighted ignorants. . You said it. And you made it clear that you backed it. You weren't making a satirical point. You were making an argumentative attack from a leftist posture.
And if anyone ELSE has noted this...he did it to escape being busted on the U.S. Constitution. Repeat: He launched his tirade precisely when he was trying to escape his constitutional misinterpretation. Which he still has not even acknowledged.
This is how he runs swiftly for the Tall Grass. I.e., change the subject as fast as you can. Make the one who spots the Constitutional Sleight-of-hand the Issue. And assert all sorts of wild aspersions in the process.
Let's examine the list of dirt he tried to dump here (this may not be an exhaustive list, but it is representative):
Juvenile. Dishonest. Sweeping judgments. Out of context. Hyperbolic.
That subtlely was apparently missed by both Paul and yourself.
Guess we did. No flies on you.
My true position: slapping a 50% punitive tariff on all trade, across the board, between the U.S. and a foreign nation would be incredibly damaging to the economy. We had better have some way of filling that gap, or the cure will be worse than the disease. We need to explore some middle ground.
Paul's strawman characterization, which he then attacks: "LexBaird doesn't seem to believe we...as the People of the United States...have the right to ever tariff any nasty countries that need to be specially treated..., countries that just might be military threats, countries that are already engaged in predatory practices damaging to America, its People and our interests as a whole..." At this point, the audience is supposed to leap to their feet and salute the flag you have wrapped yourself in, as sole Arbiter of All America Stands For.
Since my brand of subtlety seems to go past you, here it is in plain english. You're full of crap.