Conservative, just shut up. You've lost on every point, refuse to see the consequences of the actions you support and deny facts.

You refuse to recognize that war grows state power, but still try and say that you do not support a expansion of state power.

You refuse to accept that Al-Qaeda's stated goal has always been to get the US to leave the Middle East.

You refuse to accept that the US is economically leftist, even though there is minimum wage, government sponsored unions, and tens of thousands of regulations. What do you think the Fed is? It's a leftist government institution that controls the currency (which is Fiat), and controls the interest rates (and was responsible for the Great Depression's length and the most recent recession.)

You even refuse to acknowledge that supporting wars makes you partially guilty in the deaths in those wars.

Some deity help us if folk like you get power, we'll be nuclear ash by the end of the century if you and folk like Japan get power.

Atheism can't be banned because atheism isn't a religion...

civil rights

I reckon I could find 1,000,000 people willing to die for the rights of everyone else. You're saying the American Revolution for example, was not worth it?

Edited 5/22/2016 22:35:40

The American Revolution was a failure. Come on, a 4% tax on a product is nothing compared to what they do now.

Edited 5/22/2016 23:03:19

France did the American Revolution.

lol that's right, let it all out. Its hard to be called out on lies, believe me, I have done it enough to know.


" You refuse to recognize that war grows state power, but still try and say that you do not support a expansion of state power.

You refuse to accept that Al-Qaeda's stated goal has always been to get the US to leave the Middle East. "


^ sounds to me like an arrogant prick who is mad because he finally met someone who spit his ignorance back at his face. Give me proof that's there stated goal. War does not expand governmental power. People fighting the wars do. war itself has nothing to do with it. People just use it as an excuse to do what they want.



* Note * notice how he is not actually answering my attacks? he just comes back with a personal insult and arrogance and new attacks of his own ( " I am smarter then you, the majority of Americans are stupid because they aren't accepting my gospel word for word " blah blah blah etc. you get the point right? ) Classic example of someone who cant answer, does not know how, or does not want to prolong a conversation he thinks hes losing.


" Conservative, just shut up. You've lost on every point, refuse to see the consequences of the actions you support and deny facts. "


^ That is called a verbal spiral and its every debaters worst nightmare. Study the text, notice how he did not even directly mention our original subject in his first sentence? its because he is at the point of desperation. He is trying to reassert to people who watched this debate that ' Hey Hey Look at me! I won I won! " is what. This is usual with people who feel like their losing the argument or not doing good enough. Many presidential debates actually had this happen ( I suggest listening to the Nixon Vs. Kennedy debates ).



" You refuse to accept "

^ This is another one He says countless times. This actually partly proves extreme arrogance and closed mindednesss. His wording highly suggestions he does not consider anyone elses position and that everything he says is fact. This is also commonly found with people who hold relatively unaccepted ideas or at least questionable. The mind is reassuring itself that " Yes, everything I am saying is true, it , it must be. Yeah everyone else is wrong ". For example, you never hear anyone say " It is pure fact that an egg can be broken !! you must accept it!! ". Why? Because people don't feel like they have to reassure others or themselves. But when people talk about evolution, religion, or any other questionable subjects, they feel the need to constantly act like it is true and nothing else is true. Thus, by his own wording I can plainly see he doesn't even think that most people accept his views as he claimed earlier.


( His response to these comments will most likely be mockery. Unless he changes his comments because I predicted his original disposition....)

Edited 5/22/2016 23:11:40

Conservative, if you're good at arguing, then you should be able to actually beat my points with facts and evidence, not just say they're invalid because of the way they're framed.

I said Al-Qaeda's goal is to get the US out of the Middle East, provided evidence, and you said they aren't, and didn't provide evidence.

I said the US is economically leftist, you said it wasn't, so I provided evidence for why it was, and you didn't provide evidence for why it isn't.

And don't claim that I'm bad for using personal attacks when you also used personal attacks, claiming I'm arrogant and ignorant when you can't beat my arguments.

Despite expansion during Woodrow Wilson’s first term as president, the federal government on the eve of World War I remained small. In 1914, federal spending totaled less than 2 percent of GNP. The top rate of the recently enacted federal individual-income tax was 7 percent, on income over $500,000, and 99 percent of the population owed no income tax. The 402,000 federal civilian employees, most of whom worked for the Post Office, constituted about 1 percent of the labor force. The armed forces comprised fewer than 166,000 men on active duty. Although the federal government meddled in a few areas of economic life, prescribing railroad rates and bringing antitrust suits against a handful of unlucky firms, it was for most citizens remote and unimportant.

With U.S. entry into the Great War, the federal government expanded enormously in size, scope, and power. It virtually nationalized the ocean shipping industry. It did nationalize the railroad, telephone, domestic telegraph, and international telegraphic cable industries. It became deeply engaged in manipulating labor-management relations, securities sales, agricultural production and marketing, the distribution of coal and oil, international commerce, and markets for raw materials and manufactured products. Its Liberty Bond drives dominated the financial capital markets. It turned the newly created Federal Reserve System into a powerful engine of monetary inflation to help satisfy the government’s voracious appetite for money and credit. In view of the more than 5,000 mobilization agencies of various sorts—boards, committees, corporations, administrations—contemporaries who described the 1918 government as “war socialism” were well justified.[2]

During the war the government built up the armed forces to a strength of four million officers and men, drawn from a prewar labor force of 40 million persons. Of those added to the armed forces after the U.S. declaration of war, more than 2.8 million, or 72 percent, were drafted.[3] Men alone, however, did not make an army. They required barracks and training facilities, transportation, food, clothing, and health care. They had to be equipped with modern arms and great stocks of ammunition.

As the mobilization began, the requisite resources remained in the possession of private citizens. Although manpower could be obtained by conscription, public opinion would not tolerate the outright confiscation of all the property required to turn the men into a well-equipped fighting force. Still, ordinary market mechanisms threatened to operate too slowly and at too great an expense to facilitate the government’s plans. The Wilson administration therefore resorted to the vast array of interventions mentioned earlier. All may be seen as devices to hasten the delivery of the requisite resources and to diminish the fiscal burden of equipping the huge conscript army for effective service in France.

Notwithstanding those contrivances to keep the Treasury’s expenses down, taxes still had to be increased enormously—federal revenues rose by nearly 400 percent between fiscal 1917 and fiscal 1919—and even greater amounts had to be borrowed. The national debt swelled from $1.2 billion in 1916 to $25.5 billion in 1919.

To ensure that the conscription-based mobilization could proceed without obstruction, critics had to be silenced. The Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, penalized those convicted of willfully obstructing the enlistment services by fines up to $10,000 and imprisonment as long as 20 years. An amendment, the Sedition Act of May 16, 1918, went much further, imposing the same severe criminal penalties on all forms of expression in any way critical of the government, its symbols, or its mobilization of resources for the war. Those suppressions of free speech, subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, established dangerous precedents that derogated from the rights previously enjoyed by citizens under the First Amendment.

The government further subverted the Bill of Rights by censoring all printed materials, peremptorily deporting hundreds of aliens without due process of law, and conducting—and encouraging state and local governments and vigilante groups to conduct—warrantless searches and seizures, blanket arrests of suspected draft evaders, and other outrages too numerous to catalog here. In California the police arrested Upton Sinclair for reading the Bill of Rights at a rally. In New Jersey the police arrested Roger Baldwin for publicly reading the Constitution.[4]

The government also employed a massive propaganda machine to whip up what can only be described as public hysteria. The result was countless incidents of intimidation, physical abuse, and even lynching of persons suspected of disloyalty or insufficient enthusiasm for the war. People of German ancestry suffered disproportionately.[5]

When the war ended, the government abandoned most, but not all, of its wartime control measures. The draft itself ended when the armistice took effect on November 11, 1918. By the end of 1920 the bulk of the economic regulatory apparatus had been scrapped, including the Food Administration, the Fuel Administration, the Railroad Administration, the War Industries Board, and the War Labor Board. Some emergency powers migrated into regular government departments such as State, Labor, and Treasury and continued in force. The Espionage Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act remained on the statute books. Congressional enactments in 1920 preserved much of the federal government’s wartime involvement in the railroad and ocean shipping industries. The War Finance Corporation shifted missions, subsidizing exporters and farmers until the mid-1920s. Wartime prohibition of alcoholic beverages, a purported conservation measure, transmogrified into the ill-fated Eighteenth Amendment.

Most important, the dominant contemporary interpretation of the war mobilization, including the belief that federal economic controls had been instrumental in achieving the victory, persisted, especially among the elites who had played leading roles in the wartime economic management. It was hardly surprising that 15 years later, in the depths of the Great Depression, the federal government employed the wartime measures as models for dealing with what Franklin D. Roosevelt called “a crisis in our national life comparable to war.”[6]

War has everything to do with the expansion of government power during wartime, and is a blank check for folk who want to expand government power.

I will provide evidence if you want ( I have not so far because I really hate searching the web for proof that wont change a persons mind ) But you not provided any proof so far either. You have not provided any proof, just saying things. I never said the US was economically leftist, please proof that. I used personal attacks when you started attacking my intelligence.

" Don't pull the splinter out of anothers eye if your own poses a log "


EDIT: What is the source of that text?

Edited 5/22/2016 23:18:19

The source was the Foundation for economic education. Also I'm the one saying the US is economically leftist.

I also have a speech from Osama Bin Laden on the subject of Al-Qaeda's goals here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

Edited 5/22/2016 23:27:05

A few excerpts from his speech:

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

Where in those lines does it say there purpose Is to simply keep us out of the middle east?.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

Did you actually read the speech? The entire thing is him saying he wanted the US to invade Afghanistan, so he could sap the US's resources and make them exit out of the Middle East as a whole and to prevent further American attacks on Muslims.

So we are all in agreement that Obama, despite being ranked somewhere in the middle, bombed hard?

Get it? Bombed?

Whatever, he sucked.

Someone should violate the NAP on you for that.

Nap?

Do you mean the Non-Aggression Pact or the 152nd episode of Seinfeld?

Non-Aggresion principle. Basis of Voluntaryism and Anarcho-Capitalism.

Seinfeld = best show ever. Yeah I read it however I don't quite believe it since there actions say differently.

How so? They said they attacked the US to bring it into a war in the Middle East, and they helped wage a guerrilla war there to deplete the US's resources to eventually cause a financial collapse, that would make the US retreat from the Middle East. He has done things to start more wars with the US , to draw them into more conflict, and since the 2008 collapse happened primarily because of the war (I could explain if you want) and a trillion dollars has been spent on the wars through printing money and borrowing, that sinks the US further , it lends evidence to the argument that he was being genuine.

Your original point was Al-Qeada only wanted US out of the middle east. If true, why would they sponsor terrorist groups all over the world?. Remember the Madrid bombings? Spain had almost no ties to the middle east BUT they had been long a sponsor of anti terror organizations. Getting America out of ME might be a goal but it's not the final objective