The Conservative is actually far closer to Democrat than Libertarian or Conservative :P

Man, the waco is making more sense than a few of you, that's pretty great

The Republicans of the early 1800s were very good imho. The Republicans of the late 1800s were very bad imho.

WW & FDR just made us too involved, we just fucked off until those two idiots decided to say screw the Monroe Doctrine, let's try to get rich off of war!

We did ^

Actually , Modern Republicans are going back to the Democratic-Republican positions of old

CORRECTION:

Al-Qaeda is fighting for the death of America and Israel. That is not " Propaganda ". It. Is. Fact.

Correction: The stated goal of Al-Qaeda has always been to drive the US out of the Middle East.

This has been known to everyone for quite sometime, except blokes like you choose to ignore it and cry over your non-existent freedoms being attacked by non-existent threats. If you had ever paid attention to history, you would know the biggest threat to freedom is the government at war.

The Marshal Plan didn't give as much aid to West Germany probably do to hatred. It wouldn't be politically beneficial to give your formal arch enemy billions in aid now would it?. The Marshal Plan mostly helped middle nations such as Austria, Italy, Holland,etc and it did give critical money free of debt to France and Britain.

West Germany got the 3rd highest amount of money.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/marshall-plan-iraq

rapid economic growth in countries that had been occupied by Germany during the war occurred “irrespective of the timing and extent of Marshall Plan aid.” In West Germany—the plan’s most often cited success because of the subsequent “German Miracle”—economic recovery began before aid started flowing and coincided with Ludwig Erhard’s elimination of many of the Allied Control Commission’s extensive restrictions on trade, production, prices and distribution.

The arrival of Marshall Plan funds did not correlate with the resumption of growth.

Also how did you not understand that? Lol. What I'm saying is, Stalin gave Kim the go ahead by saying I won't stop you. Truman recognised this and moved to stop communist influence.

Ok, so basically what I said before - Truman refused to let Korea be united.

Popular discontent stemmed from the U.S. Military Government's support of the Japanese colonial government; then once removed, keeping the former Japanese governors on as advisors; by ignoring, censoring and forcibly disbanding the functional and popular People's Republic of Korea (PRK); and finally by supporting United Nations elections that divided the country.

There were colossal riots against American rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Uprising_of_1946

while I don't agree with wars, I don't find them as an inherent problem

Would you like it if you were killed? I far think that you'd rather atheism be banned in America than to be killed. How can you not see war as the biggest problem?

how to count in terms of what is a problem, you count in the number of lives lost, to which I state, so then you would have to consider people like , , FDR, TR, Bush 41, and basically every president that got us involved in an unnecessary war as bad. FDR-European theatre...TR-Spanish-American War, bush41- first gulf war, seriously a bad examination system if you ask me.

If you ask me, it's the only valid examination system there is, unless there's a tie in death count (0). Nothing is as bad as a death, nothing can weigh over it - Marshall Plan, civil rights - not worth thousands dead.

I also heavily take in motive, as I don't believe that people that do the right thing for the wrong reasons deserve large amounts of credit.

Yeah, and Nixon is bad there, I agree - he was very pragmatic. But so were all the others, he just happened to do way better deeds.

Would you like it if you were killed? I far think that you'd rather atheism be banned in America than to be killed. How can you not see war as the biggest problem?
Nope, I would gladly go into a full revolution to preserve the rights of atheists, and risk getting killed. I find there to be much bigger problems than wars, which I view as just diplomacy failures.

If you ask me, it's the only valid examination system there is, unless there's a tie in death count (0). Nothing is as bad as a death, nothing can weigh over it - Marshall Plan, civil rights - not worth thousands dead.
And I think that's where we massively disagree. You assign the value of life to be infinite, I find it finite and very limited, as such I view the actions taken in the presidency to alleviate global and domestic social and economic problems having the potential to outweigh the botched warfare of a presidency.

But so were all the others, he just happened to do way better deeds. By your definition of better deeds. Also, some did actually do the right stuff for the right reasons. Truman pushed for civil rights despite it costing him popular support, the same goes for LBJ. Eisenhower eventually turned against McCarthy, despite that action also costing him popular support. I view Nixon's actions as mostly those that were popular, he cut back on enforcement of civil rights for instance.

Nope, I would gladly go into a full revolution to preserve the rights of atheists, and risk getting killed.

Would that be fair to your family and friends? That's who your death hurts most, and you're just throwing away their feelings in the masturbation of ridiculous principles.

You assign the value of life to be infinite, I find it finite and very limited, as such I view the actions taken in the presidency to alleviate global and domestic social and economic problems having the potential to outweigh the botched warfare of a presidency.

How is taking a right away as bad as taking a life away, you tell me that.

Truman pushed for civil rights despite it costing him popular support

You said something about him refusing a conservative legislator. That's antidemocratic, that's all I've to say about that. Likely your other exemples are, too.

" Correction: The stated goal of Al-Qaeda has always been to drive the US out of the Middle East.

This has been known to everyone for quite sometime, except blokes like you choose to ignore it and cry over your non-existent freedoms being attacked by non-existent threats. If you had ever paid attention to history, you would know the biggest threat to freedom is the government at war. "


^ This is not stupid or ignorant. This is dangerous. Al-Qaeda is a militant extremist Islamic terrorist group whose stated plan to wipe America off the map along with Israel. That is not resistance, that is not fighting for freedom. That's terrorism. Smedly, you have once again shown the extremist side of yourself. " This is best known to everyone " if it is, I wonder why your the only person I have ever heard express that idea, and I have worked in political groups my entire life.


If you knew anything about history, you would know the most dangerous threat to freedom is religion and the myth of " Government can be trusted with your rights ". Terrorists are not noble freedom fighters. They are terrorists, who take the ideas of a philosophy or religion to the extreme in order to fulfill a certain wanting in their mind, usually affiliated with loneliness or depression or just plain enthusiasm for their group. How on gods earth you actually believe this is beyond me. Al-Qaeda has sponsored or attacked nations who were never involved in the middle east. They don't have logical reasoning, they have religious reasoning. This is not politics, this is not for freedom, this is the fact they think if they blow themselves up, they will have 70 virgins to fuck. Look, I highly doubt you have ever read the Quran or studied the religious issues of the middle east but if you have, you know for a fact that the majority of educated professors and experts will tell you that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko-Harom, and many others are not affected by promises of freedom or wealth. If they had been, this war on terrorism never would have existed in the first place. This is a religious question of fulfilling what they think the Quran tells them to do. That's why blockheads like you get this messed up. Because you don't know a rats ass about religion and what the bible and Quran actually say. Your content with just ranting based on what one teacher said or what you read on a blog somewhere. That's how these Bush did 9/11, The masons rule the world etc. rumors started. A few people binding the truth to what they want it to say and then broadcasting it to world in extreme arrogance acting like its the gospel and anyone who disagrees with it is stupid.

Edited 5/22/2016 19:21:58

This is why its hard to debate you. Because your so dog minded its almost stero-typical. You don't care about thinking about what the other person says. I always consider an argument carefully, always. I might have a bias sometimes but I do my best to give it a fair chance.

" Ignorance is the father of Arrogance " - Unknown

Edited 5/22/2016 19:30:13

Omg. This is not a debate. This is an argument.

Ideology and Goals. The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East.

This has been stated multiple times, your ignorance of the subject is awful.

Terrorists are not noble freedom fighters. They are terrorists, who take the ideas of a philosophy or religion to the extreme in order to fulfill a certain wanting in their mind, usually affiliated with loneliness or depression or just plain enthusiasm for their group

Before you say that I stated Al-Qaeda is a group of freedom fighters , actually read what I say. I said the government is anti-freedom, both economic and social. This has been proven time and time again. More importantly, when the government is at war, social freedoms diminish.

You can't get this through your head. THE US IS ANTI FREEDOM. The US is not fighting for freedom, they aren't a stabilizing force in the Middle East, and they're the reason Islamic extremism has gotten so big. You seem to think bombing entire countries will solve this problem , when it hasn't solved it in Afghanistan, and it made a problem in Iraq, Libya and Syria. You seem to think bombing Mashriq to nothing will win this war and finish this conflict, without escalating it further. You seem to think that despite Al-Qaeda's original goal and the reason folk support it is to destroy America, when it's been stated over and over again by Al-Qaeda that their goal is to get America out of the Middle East. You seem to think Al-Qaeda will invade America and the west and destroy our freedoms, when it's obvious the governments of the west are the ones who not only have the power to destroy the freedoms folk have, but the incentive to destroy the freedoms folk have. You're another stereotypical conservative who can't get his mind around anything except blowing folk up and defending non-existent freedoms. Stop calling yourself a libertarian, too, you're not. You've shown complete stupidity when it comes to anything with foreign policy. You seem to think that Islamic Extremism popped out of nowhere in 2001 and it wanted to conquer the west from the beginning. Folk like you are so extremely arrogant and ignorant of this and you show it, with a refusal to think of the US as anything else than another government that wants more power, or the motives of a terrorist group when it's clearly stated.

Edited 5/22/2016 20:20:52

The second I saw " Your a retard " I stopped reading because your arrogance override your mouth at that point.


I never ever said the U.S. still fought for freedom ( I swear to god, your assumptions would murder you in an actual debate ) I simply said your diagnoses of Al-Qaeda sounded like it came from the type person you are. A conspiracy theorist who believes what he wants too and doesn't even consider anyone else.



For God's sake. The White House. The UN. The majority of Americans. The defense department. They all say that Al-Qaeda us driven by religious motives. It's not ' Defense of the Motherland " soviet style, it's religion.

Edited 5/22/2016 20:26:20

Actually I lied, I needed a good laugh so I kept reading.

Oh and btw, I highly suggest you stop denying I'm a libertarian. Anyone who says Bush was a Keynesian doesn't know much about philosophical or political alignment lol.

Edited 5/22/2016 20:29:22

Conservative, you assumed too, jackass.

Now let's see:

The White House has a incentive not to tell the truth about Al-Qaeda
The UN is a powerless organization that is held by the US and US allies
The Defense Department has a incentive not to tell the truth about Al-Qaeda
And the majority of Americans are mostly ignorant on the subject (like you)

I've never seen you praising the free market, or actual non-interventionism, I've seen much more of the opposite though. And Bush is Keynesian, denying this is denying all common sense.

Of my gosh your arrogance is so utterly complete. I actually saw an episode of Parks and Rec that fits this situation perfectly.


Apparently, your version of common sense is not at all common. Where the hell did I assume anyway? I stated fact. The offical positions of those departments are aligned with what I said. Oh god, not the Keynesian thing again. Please, I was only joking, please dont bring that up, ignorance that high actually gives me a migraine ( I am dead serous lol ).


Ok now you are lying> I never supported the Patriot act, The Gulf war, the Libyan intervention and I have said so within this damn conversation while directly talking to you.


Do you even understand libertarianism? It is free market. I am a libertarian = Supporting the free market.


* WARNING: After this, I aint explaining anything else to you so make sure to bring up Wikipedia

Edited 5/22/2016 21:19:45

I feel like Obama did a few good things. I'd say like 2/3rds of his actions were OK to pretty awful.

Honestly, I wonder how past presidents would have handled our modern issues.

I can see Andrew Jackson dueling Vladimir Putin after they tried negotiations..

Lol Jackson Vs. Putin