Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Albenia wrote:Of course some are.

And if you kill someone your technically a murderer.

Someone who threatens are soldiers is an enemy, and that is self defense, not murder.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Someone who threatens are soldiers is an enemy, and that is self defense, not murder.

In heaven your still held accountable.

No your not, You are risking your life for your fellow citizens.

Liberosia wrote:Can I label low level Al Quaeda affiliates as criminals and murderers?

Are you referring to Americans who turn their back on their country who kill themselves for Al Quaeda? They murdered innocent people in a bombing and they betrayed their country. They are murderous traitors.

The Amarican Empire wrote:No your not, You are risking your life for your fellow citizens.

Yes you are.

lol, ok what ever the almighty lord Joseph Smith says.

Albenia wrote:In heaven your still held accountable.

Soldiers sacrifice their lives, that includes life with their husband or wife, friends, family, personal life, and they are willing to die for us. Saying that they are murderers and they will be held accountable in heaven, is extremely offensive, they are heroes and I'm pretty sure God wouldn't see them as murderers. How can say God could hold them as murderers, do you have him on speed dial? Even if you don't have religion, soldiers will be remembered as honorable people.

I got you TTA we should have let the nazis ride in the streets of America. War is murder, we cant defend our selfs that is wrong.

The Amarican Empire wrote:lol, ok what ever the almighty lord Joseph Smith says.

...What?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Soldiers sacrifice their lives, that includes life with their husband or wife, friends, family, personal life, and they are willing to die for us. Saying that they are murderers and they will be held accountable in heaven, is extremely offensive, they are heroes and I'm pretty sure God wouldn't see them as murderers. How can say God could hold them as murderers, do you have him on speed dial? Even if you don't have religion, soldiers will be remembered as honorable people.

"Thou Shalt not kill."

It didn't say "Thou shalt not kill (Unless you fought for your country or for self-defense)"

The Amarican Empire wrote:I got you TTA we should have let the nazis ride in the streets of America. War is murder, we cant defend our selfs that is wrong.

1. They have the same rights as everyone else.

2. They will be judged accordingly. They will be held accountable in heaven for sure. Whether it will be accounted the same way as killing for no reason is beyond me.

The Amarican Empire wrote:TTA, you need help.

If only you knew the rest of it telegram me if you do. Not appropriate for RMB

Albenia wrote:...What?"Thou Shalt not kill."

It didn't say "Thou shalt not kill (Unless you fought for your country or for self-defense)"

Do you have God on speed dial? Did God tell you, "Soldiers will go to he'll for defending their country." you can't mix religion with military. Also, do realize how many people would be dead if it weren't for soldiers? Did it ever occur to you that we will still have slavery in America if the civil war never happened?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Do you have God on speed dial? Did God tell you, "Soldiers will go to he'll for defending their country." you can't mix religion with military. Also, do realize how many people would be dead if it weren't for soldiers? Did it ever occur to you that we will still have slavery in America if the civil war never happened?

It's in the literal ten commandments.

"Thou shalt not kill."

No exceptions.

And yes it does.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Do you have God on speed dial? Did God tell you, "Soldiers will go to he'll for defending their country." you can't mix religion with military. Also, do realize how many people would be dead if it weren't for soldiers? Did it ever occur to you that we will still have slavery in America if the civil war never happened?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Do you have God on speed dial? Did God tell you, "Soldiers will go to he'll for defending their country." you can't mix religion with military. Also, do realize how many people would be dead if it weren't for soldiers? Did it ever occur to you that we will still have slavery in America if the civil war never happened?

Hell

The Bible was written by man most of the stuff in the bible are storys with lessons. I believe that god loves all of us and would under stand a war of defense.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The Bible was written by man most of the stuff in the bible are storys with lessons. I believe that god loves all of us and would under stand a war of defense.

It says you shouldn't kill.

You'll be held accountable. Whether you go to hell I doubt you will.

Albenia wrote:It's in the literal ten commandments.

"Thou shalt not kill."

No exceptions.

And yes it does.

If you are a non-violent person then that's fine, but don't insult our soldiers for doing their job. My great grandfather served, my grandfather served, and my father served, and I don't appreciate you calling loyal Americans murderers.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:If you are a non-violent person then that's fine, but don't insult our soldiers for doing their job. My great grandfather served, my grandfather served, and my father served, and I don't appreciate you calling loyal Americans murderers.

I don't.

Both my grandparents. My uncles served and one died.

Albenia wrote:I don't.

Both my grandparents. My uncles served and one died.

Then why are you saying that soldiers kill

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Then why are you saying that soldiers kill

Lol, statist gonna state

And can we please all get past the delusion that soldiers are fighting for our freedoms in a literal sense? There is no grounds to claim that any active combat military operations in the last 30+ years has done anything to safe guard out freedoms. While I'm sure the vast majority of those who enlist have their hearts in the right place, they are oblivious to the realities of their position.

If you enlist in the military you are agreeing to become a professional killer who will target and eliminate other humans as dictated by the governing apparatus. That's it , there isn't any honor or man hood in politically driven murder when an individual does it, why should it be any different if you're wrapped in a flag and ordained by the state?

The United States flag is a symbol of the country not the Government. The last war that was a defensive war was ww2.

The war on terror is kindof defensive because we are fighting terrorists, then again we have killed civilians.

Lack There Of wrote:Lol, statist gonna state

My man

Soldiers fight for money. If you took away the money component, the army would falter, and nobody would join it without conscription. That goes to show that soldiers aren't as loyal to their country as they are to their rational self interest.

Lack There Of wrote:And can we please all get past the delusion that soldiers are fighting for our freedoms in a literal sense? There is no grounds to claim that any active combat military operations in the last 30+ years has done anything to safe guard out freedoms. While I'm sure the vast majority of those who enlist have their hearts in the right place, they are oblivious to the realities of their position.

If you enlist in the military you are agreeing to become a professional killer who will target and eliminate other humans as dictated by the governing apparatus. That's it , there isn't any honor or man hood in politically driven murder when an individual does it, why should it be any different if you're wrapped in a flag and ordained by the state?

^

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Then why are you saying that soldiers kill

Because they do you Statist.

Not necessarily, they have families to take care of. Why decide to fight if your family would be starving?

Albenia wrote:Because they do you Statist.

Don't you even use that word

The Amarican Empire wrote:Not necessarily, they have families to take care of. Why decide to fight if your family would be starving?

Why not find a productive job

Lack There Of wrote:Don't you even use that word

Why not find a productive job

Why?

I am talking about a defensive war when your country needs you. Also if no one joined willingly the government would just draft people.

And what about tradition or the urge to do his or share. Ill be glad if a world war begins. So you can go to the front or locked behind bars.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Soldiers fight for money. If you took away the money component, the army would falter, and nobody would join it without conscription. That goes to show that soldiers aren't as loyal to their country as they are to their rational self interest.

Do you know how horrible pay is in the military? How long it takes to get a decent pay? How horrible there "health-care" is? How they must spend years away from their families? That sounds like rational self interest doesn't it?

Northern Prussia wrote:And what about tradition or the urge to do his or share. Ill be glad if a world war begins. So you can go to the front or locked behind bars.

What?

Also if solders were in it for the money why would they join anyway? The solders get payed so little.

Albenia wrote:Because they do you Statist.

Don't you dare call me a statist?

Northern Prussia wrote:And what about tradition or the urge to do his or share. Ill be glad if a world war begins. So you can go to the front or locked behind bars.

If you honestly believe this, you have proven why democratic government is one of the most dangerous creations of the human mind

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Don't you dare call me a statist?

!

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Don't you dare call me a statist?

Why not?

Thats why I support constitutional monarchies

So which wars do you guys approve of then?

The Amarican Empire wrote:So which wars do you guys approve of then?

Defensive wars.

Northern Prussia wrote:Thats why I support constitutional monarchies

Makes sense.

Albenia wrote:Why not?

I'm not a statist, I don't believe is statism

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I'm not a statist, I don't believe is statism

I don't either but does that stop the name?

Lack There Of wrote:Lol, statist gonna state

I'm not a statist

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I'm not a statist, I don't believe is statism

Lol, this guy right here, what a jokester.

I'm so glad the onion is real, and topical;

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-flag-recalled-after-causing-143-million-deaths,17248/

Other discussion. Jimmy Carter was a great president in the wrong decade. His policies were putting America on a path to sustainibility and renewed peace. Then Reagan was elected and destroyed all of his work. Brought the era of large deficit spending and the false economic growth.

Albenia wrote:I don't either but does that stop the name?

I am not a statist

So

the American Revolution

the war of 1812

The Amarican civil war

and ww2?

Northern Prussia wrote:Other discussion. Jimmy Carter was a great president in the wrong decade. His policies were putting America on a path to sustainibility and renewed peace. Then Reagan was elected and destroyed all of his work. Brought the era of large deficit spending and the false economic growth.

I only agreed with half of that!

But I applaud you for realizing that.

Lack There Of wrote:Lol, this guy right here, what a jokester.

I'm so glad the onion is real, and topical;

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-flag-recalled-after-causing-143-million-deaths,17248/

Don't take the onion seriously

Always goodnight y'all

Northern Prussia wrote:Thats why I support constitutional monarchies

Beside the fact that it's an awful concept, it's halfway admirable to find that system, or something similar, ideal. When there is a monarch or dictator in charge there is no illusion of self ownership and the force used to subdue the populace is open, if not saluted. In these systems of "self governing" people are lead along in the allusion that they are in control and that the force being implemented is for their own benefit.

Albenia wrote:I only agreed with half of that!

But I applaud you for realizing that. Don't take the onion seriously

I know not to take the onion seriously

Lack There Of wrote:Beside the fact that it's an awful concept, it's halfway admirable to find that system, or something similar, ideal. When there is a monarch or dictator in charge there is no illusion of self ownership and the force used to subdue the populace is open, if not saluted. In these systems of "self governing" people are lead along in the allusion that they are in control and that the force being implemented is for their own benefit.

You know what's weird, England still declares they are a constitutional monarch.

Northern Prussia wrote:Other discussion. Jimmy Carter was a great president in the wrong decade. His policies were putting America on a path to sustainibility and renewed peace. Then Reagan was elected and destroyed all of his work. Brought the era of large deficit spending and the false economic growth.

Reagan economic growth was not false.

Liberosia wrote:Would you give a quick summary of the article and it's conclusions for the RMB?

Sure. 1. Traumatizing job 2. No "man behind joystick" like a video game, a large team "pilots" the drone 3. Cannot make out faces or lisence plates (cameras are pretty much crap) 4. The movies on drones are bs. 5. There are two to six second delays on the visuals (crap cameras) 6. Yes with heat vision... it kind get kind of voyeur like. 7. Military higher ups still don't know how drones work.

The Amarican Empire wrote:So

the American Revolution

the war of 1812

The Amarican civil war

and ww2?

WW 1 as well?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:WW 1 as well?

Not defense.

The Amarican Empire wrote:So

the American Revolution

the war of 1812

The Amarican civil war

and ww2?

Those and only those.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:WW 1 as well?

I'm really starting to wonder if you really are joking with us and this whole persona is just a practical joke

Lack There Of wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if you really are joking with us and this whole persona is just a practical joke

What do you mean?

Northern Prussia wrote:Other discussion. Jimmy Carter was a great president in the wrong decade. His policies were putting America on a path to sustainibility and renewed peace. Then Reagan was elected and destroyed all of his work. Brought the era of large deficit spending and the false economic growth.

I am admittedly no expert on the carter administration, however I find the Reagan presidency, relatively speaking, to be tolerable if not agreeable in some aspects.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:What do you mean?

Wee you serious about claiming ww1 was justified?

Northern Prussia wrote:Indian Wars

An insult....

There was no point in the United States to get involved in ww1.

Lack There Of wrote:Wee you serious about claiming ww1 was justified?
I suppose I should have put joking, sorry about that?

Wilson is awful and there is no justification for our entry into ww1. That is all.

I was joking, sorry if I offended anyone

The Amarican Empire wrote:There was no point in the United States to get involved in ww1.

Corporate/banking interests and Wilson's political objectives

Liberosia wrote:Wilson is awful and there is no justification for our entry into ww1. That is all.

Wilson tried keeping us out of war but was pushed by Public Opinion.

What a politician tells the public and what he believe are not normally the same.

If you like your docter you can keep it.

Albenia wrote:Wilson tried keeping us out of war but was pushed by Public Opinion.

That's an urban legend

The Amarican Empire wrote:What a politician tells the public and what he believe are not normally the same.

Obviously....

Wilson was pushed by the Public then declared war. When he saw people celebrating the fact they were going to war HE stated:" I don't understand why American's are cheering for their young men to die."

Lack There Of wrote:That's an urban legend

No it isn't..

OH WAIT! You dislike him. Of course anything good he did is an urban legend.

Lack There Of wrote:That's an urban legend

Well should have stayed out of it.

Albenia wrote:Obviously....

Wilson was pushed by the Public then declared war. When he saw people celebrating the fact they were going to war HE stated:" I don't understand why American's are cheering for their young men to die."

Unless he secretly supported the war and wanted to pretend to be anti war so it would look like it was the people. Who knows maybe the small things that got us to declare war were from wilson. It would not be the first time the government has lied to us to get our fangs out.

Albenia wrote:No it isn't..

OH WAIT! You dislike him. Of course anything good he did is an urban legend.

I can never tell if you're serious or not

The Amarican Empire wrote:Unless he secretly supported the war and wanted to pretend to be anti war so it would look like it was the people. Who knows maybe the small things that got us to declare war were from wilson. It would not be the first time the government has lied to us to get our fangs out.

.....-_- And Here Is Conspiracy talk with: Jesse Ventura

Lack There Of wrote:I can never tell if you're serious or not

Good.

Lack There Of wrote:I can never tell if you're serious or not

Lack There Of wrote:I can never tell if you're serious or not

I was joking about world war 1 with getting involved.

Lack There Of wrote:I see, now I know

Sorry for the confusion

And furthermore, the state ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

Lack There Of wrote:And furthermore, the state ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

You're the best

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=299155&p=20386194&sid=b703a6224705322da3409b4332c016d8#p20386194

Rotgeheim wrote:You guys are pretty sickening. I didn't read into the entire argument, but what I've gathered so far is disturbing. You're bashing someone for wanting to serve his country. He is enlisting in the military with only good intentions and you lot wish nothing more than to convince him that his beliefs aren't worth fighting for. He isn't going on a crusade for the bad that plagues some areas of our government. Northern Prussia is joining the military to fight for the good that is in our United States of America. He is a United States Marine, and honestly, trying to tell him that his country isn't worth the fight is extremely unpatriotic. Shouldn't libertarians be accepting of one another's beliefs?

Good for Prussia. As I said above, soldiers are heroes. We're not debating about whether the country is worth fighting for, but whether the government has reached a point where it'll throw away thousands of lives just to achieve its own political goals.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:You honestly believe that children are targeted by drones? You honestly believe the US military targets children?

Unfortunately, this is indeed the case. The US government has unapologetically murdered hundreds of civilian men, women and children in the Middle East, and continues to do so without caring. Even if they're going after high-profile militants, they are still targeting children, by proxy, as they have not bothered to alter their policy to avoid all these unnecessary deaths, and will openly bomb civilians in order to kill one terrorist. A wedding was bombed a few weeks ago in Yemen, killing fifty people. An American-born Yemeni teenager was murdered while having lunch in a diner, without charges and without trial, because his father was a member of Al-Qaeda who had died two weeks before.

These drone strikes do indeed target kids. http://drones.pitchinteractive.com

Northern Prussia wrote:Other discussion. Jimmy Carter was a great president in the wrong decade. His policies were putting America on a path to sustainibility and renewed peace. Then Reagan was elected and destroyed all of his work. Brought the era of large deficit spending and the false economic growth.

I disagree. Carter wasn't too bad on spending, but in all other areas he was a terrible President. He created the Department of Energy to appease his union pals, which today soaks up $70 billion in tax dollars, and the Department of Energy, a corporate welfare boat that wastes $30 billion a year. Carter was a weak President that weakened America, he continued the failed experiment that was détente and sat by while the Soviets expanded their empire. Reagan was direly needed in 1980. He tried to cut spending numerous times, even bringing a balanced budget constitutional amendment to Congress in 1982 (it passed the Senate but fell ten votes short of a supermajority in the House). It was economic growth that sparked a two-decade expansion, creating 50 million jobs and adding the equivalent of the Chinese economy x 2 to the US one.

Albenia wrote:Wilson tried keeping us out of war but was pushed by Public Opinion.

Quite the opposite. He wanted to get involved in the war from the start, but the public was firmly against it. So he slowly bumped PO in favour of the war.

Albenia wrote:No it isn't..

OH WAIT! You dislike him. Of course anything good he did is an urban legend.

He created the Federal Reserve AND the income tax. He passed the Sedition Act (which is still in effect), segregated the federal government and publicly legitimised the KKK. He was nearly as bad as FDR.

For the first time, I'm in the ranking's top ten.

Pevvania wrote:I disagree. Carter wasn't too bad on spending, but in all other areas he was a terrible President. He created the Department of Energy to appease his union pals, which today soaks up $70 billion in tax dollars, and the Department of Energy, a corporate welfare boat that wastes $30 billion a year. Carter was a weak President that weakened America, he continued the failed experiment that was détente and sat by while the Soviets expanded their empire. Reagan was direly needed in 1980. He tried to cut spending numerous times, even bringing a balanced budget constitutional amendment to Congress in 1982 (it passed the Senate but fell ten votes short of a supermajority in the House). It was economic growth that sparked a two-decade expansion, creating 50 million jobs and adding the equivalent of the Chinese economy x 2 to the US one.

You named the Department of Energy twice, there.

RIP The Magic Conch.

Miencraft wrote:RIP The Magic Conch.

Noooooooo

Lack There Of wrote:And furthermore, the state ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

Nooo

Albenia wrote:Wilson tried keeping us out of war but was pushed by Public Opinion.

No he didn't. He was pushed into it by the Fed Reserve who wanted to profit off of the war through war bonds. The Fed Reserve is the only reason he got elected, in exchange for campaign support, Wilson would bring forth the Federal Reserve Act so that the rich could get richer and reenact their hold on america's money. Why we can't just get rid of this arbitrary banking system today with the Fed Res and go back to the far superior gold standard is beyond me.

Miencraft wrote:You named the Department of Energy twice, there.

I meant Education the first time.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:No he didn't. He was pushed into it by the Fed Reserve who wanted to profit off of the war through war bonds. The Fed Reserve is the only reason he got elected, in exchange for campaign support, Wilson would bring forth the Federal Reserve Act so that the rich could get richer and reenact their hold on america's money. Why we can't just get rid of this arbitrary banking system today with the Fed Res and go back to the far superior gold standard is beyond me.

Perhaps the key role of the central bank is to finance wars. That's literally true.

A true liberal would advocate the abolition of the Federal Reserve. It's inflationary policies are regressive by definition. Inflating the value of stocks and bonds while increasing the cost of living helps the rich and harms the poor.

For all those familiar with Britain and its economy and politics, which would you rather abolish, VAT or the income tax?

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:For the first time, I'm in the ranking's top ten.

Same here

Hey guys, today was the day that D-Day happened.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.