Donald Trump is a libertarian or a retardalien?
:)

It's nice and all that but who builds the roads?

Me I will build the roads !

In fact, the only thing modern libertarians support that I don't is decreasing the military budget.

WHY?

Bc, Ox, some people just want those big long hard nukes with their giant payloads.

+1 Ox

Congrats, Benjie, on making a pointless post when your perfectly capable of saying something intelligent.

Jews are too conservative and authoritarian to create democracy.

LOL. 61% of Jews are members of the Democratic Party. Only 31% are Republicans and many of those are centrist or right-of-center eastern establishment Republicans. If you are referring to Jews in Israel this is again a not completely truthful statement. Sure you have far right parties like Shas, Likud, and The Jewish Home. But most people know that the electorate leans left. Also "Conservatism" in the Jewish sense is different than in other contexts. Most Jews support socially liberal policies such as gay marriage, abortion, and the welfare state.


Wolf I am a big supporter of Libertarianism. If I quite the Republican party I'll head to the Libertarians or Constitutionalist Party. What do you think of Ron Paul by the way...arguably the most important Libertarian in the last 2 decades.

Edited 12/28/2015 16:37:43

Jews have no real politics... you have two options:

1- Murder the Palestinians outright
2- Torture the Palestinians to death

Edited 12/28/2015 16:42:26

No that's just wrong. I'm sorry. That's not true.

Colonel, ethnicity doesn't correspond with politics

Well, I like Ron Paul a lot better then his son. I would vote for him as long as their was a chance he could win

Wtf is this I'm hearing about anarchy and Not building roads? That is utter Bullshit. Libertarianism is certainly not anarchy by a long shot. Libertarianism supports the person's right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't physically harm the people around them. It's extremely simple but in case your not getting what I mean I suggest looking up about the libertarian philosophy on Wikipedia. In anarchy you do whatever you want no Matter the problems you might cause for other people. Libertarianism and anarchy are completely and totally different. And I said Jewish sects not the main Jewish tribes. Back in the bible and other historical documents show many Jewish and Arab sects elected their leaders with an off hand version of democracy

Conservative, I want to know your thoughts on British nuke policy. Is it moral / strategically profitable that Britain wastes billions of pounds on gigantic death bombs?

So Scottish, if I call democrats democrats all of a sudden I'm doing a miss service to the world? Lol that is the most stupid argument I have ever heard in politics. And no, you are wrong again because the constitution clearly states the separation of church and state Is vital to the survival of a nation and that includes state and federally funded schools not recognizing any official religion

Well I don't know much about that issue but at face value i can see the benefits and the problems with it. England Is not exactly known for man power and 90 percent of all your food comes from abroad so Britain, unlike America and Vietnam, is not a self reliant nation and couldn't survive long in a nuclear war even if bombs never hit your shores. The bombs pose an environmental threat and an accident on that small island might mean the end of Britain. However, nuclear weapons is the only thing that keeps Britain running with the top dogs that and there military training. So in the end, it's a personal choice. Personally , I think England should follow in the path of Germany and Netherlands when it comes turn getting nukes. Neither Germany or holland has the power to create nuclear weapons however they do have them because America gave them to them. The factories that make nuclear bomb parts are much more dangerous then the bombs themselves

Edited 12/28/2015 19:08:10

As someone who is further left on the political spectrum, I must say that although I don't agree with their policies, I have immense respect for many libertarian politicians. Ron Paul, for example, was one of the better presidential candidates we've had in a long time. I would never have voted for him based on ideological grounds, but he had a sincerity that I have not seen in any major candidate since 2000 (when I started paying attention to politics). This is especially true this year, where the only candidate who seems remotely sincere and consistent in their beliefs is Bernie Sanders (ignore his ideology for a second, the man believes what he says, his beliefs are consistent, and he has a record of standing by his professed beliefs), and I don't think he's quite on Ron Paul's level.

Also, did someone honestly think Donald Trump is anywhere near Libertarianism? He's as far away from being a libertarian as almost any modern American Politician.

Edited 12/28/2015 19:20:01

I agree that Bernie Sanders believes in what he says but so did every other Socialist candidate in American politics. Their was a socialist party candidate who ran for president during Wilson's second term election ( I think ) after he was thrown in prison for openly supporting Marxism, he said something that has become the base of my belief on the relationship between Democrats and Socialists and I also think Bernie Sanders is fulfilling. He said " socialism will never be openly accepted by the American people as long as we run under our own banner. But, under the flag of liberalism we will institute every single aspect of socialism into American politics and society " the man's name was Debbs

democratic socialism (Scandinavian model) > socialism.

England Is not exactly known for man power and 90 percent of all your food comes from abroad so Britain, unlike America and Vietnam, is not a self reliant nation and couldn't survive long in a nuclear war even if bombs never hit your shores.

But an independent Scotland would be almost entirely self reliant. Fish? Check. Beef? Aberdeen Angus, check. Crops? Huge agricultural industry, check. Lamb/other animals? Definitely! The only thing we don't have are really, the foods that the banana republics can supply.

You also talk of a nuclear war. Is this plausible? Surely, nobody would survive long in a nuclear war, regardless of where their food comes from. Also, how does food relate to nukes, and the huge detriment it causes to the economy?

The bombs pose an environmental threat and an accident on that small island might mean the end of Britain.

Which is one of the many reasons why we shouldn't have nukes.

However, nuclear weapons is the only thing that keeps Britain running with the top dogs that and there military training.

An independent Scotland wouldn't want to be "running with the top dogs". Neither should UK, even. Britain needs to realise that she's no longer a world power, and that she should step down and act irrelevant, like she is. Nukes are one of the only things that keep Britain among America, China, India, and co. as a "power", and Britain acts like she wants to be one. Accept your fate, Britain! You're not good anymore!

So in the end, it's a personal choice.

Not really true. There are facts, and conclusions from debates that nuclear bombs are terrible in almost every aspect for Britain.

Personally , I think England should follow in the path of Germany and Netherlands when it comes turn getting nukes.

"Personally I think Britain..." yeah, but I agree.

Neither Germany or holland has the power to create nuclear weapons however they do have them because America gave them to them. The factories that make nuclear bomb parts are much more dangerous then the bombs themselves

*Germany or Netherlands*

Germany would definitely have the money to spend, to get nukes if she wanted to. I'm not even sure if Netherlands or Germany have them at all (could be wrong, but I don't think so...).

In conclusion, there is no logical reason for Britain to have nukes.