However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:
‘Declaration of war’: European officials offer brutal responses to Trump tariffs
(WaPo)
Five myths about why the South secededTariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes Tariffs were not an issue in 1860
(WaPo)
This week, WaPo writes:
However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:
Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
This week, WaPo writes:They aren't arguing either side.
They reported the news.
Where did they say tariffs were good or bad? Where is the hypocrisy by the left?
However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:
Here is the rest of the the tariff not an issue info. The article this was in was saying that tariffs were not a reason for the southern states to secede.
"Tariffs were not an issue in 1860 (for seceding from the union), and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816."
Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
They aren't arguing either side.In one article WaPo says imposing tariffs constitutes "war", masterdickmuncher, and in the other article WaPo's argument is that tariffs were of no import in causing war, you disingenuous POS.
Your thread title is not supported by any info in the OP.
The 1st Post article reports the European response to tariffs trump announced. The 2nd article has nothing that demonstrates any hypocrisy about tariffs. It points out tariffs weren't a reason for the south seceding.
Neither article makes a judgment call whether tariffs are good or bad. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
This week, WaPo writes:They didn't argue any side tranny fucker. They reported what was said.
However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:
Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
They didn't argue any side tranny fucker. They reported what was said.
Wrong. The WP quoted someone saying that. They "reported", they didn't editorialize the statement.
Do you have a link?
Of no import causing the Civil War, not any war. It's not saying tariffs can't cause a war. It says tariffs didn't start that war.
So in other words in an apple to apple comparison, you could say tariffs caused one but not the other and still not be hypocritical.
Simple statements of fact. The tariffs were written by the southern states. They were the lowest they had been since 1816.
In what way is reporting a statement made by a person quoted in a story and making a statement of fact hypocritical? It's not.
Reporting isn't endorsing.
Editorials can be hypocritical. Straight reporting can cover a subject that's hypocritical. But straight, factual "reporting" isn't hypocritical
You just wanted to get a stupid shot in and you got caught.
If anyone on here can figure out a way to turn that dick in your mouth into a cigar it's you. But I'm not going to stick around to see how you do it. You watch too much fox. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
