Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
He was 8 when the war began now he is about to turn 21
"You know my Snapchat Story, not my story."
Humpheria, you aren't alone.
Or when they rush into McDonald's threatening to fine them if they don't develop a healthier menu. I've always thought the government protected my rights, not administered them.
My father is a casualty of war. Mother wanted to, but couldn't because of health issues, don't have a step-father, but y uncle served three tours, I don't see how an eight year old can fight, but I have two brothers currently deployed.
He's currently 21 years old. He's overseas right now.
The war began when he was eight. Now he serves in Afghanistan when he is about to turn 21.
I'm 19, my oldest brother is 22, he's in Germany, and my older brother is 20 and he's in Afghanistan.
Are you going to join?
Yes once I graduate.
No. I'm going to serve my country in politics. Leave the military to my brothers.
That's honorable. I'm going to serve, personally.
No it's not. It is not at all honorable. I'm not doing it for the honor, or the glory, but because it needs to be done by someone with a brain.
Fine. It's worthy of praise.
Partisan or non partisan?
I don't see a way to be in politics without being partisan. I'm a conservative.
So what party then?
I'm a Libertarian, but I understand that I will probably have to run as a Republican for awhile.
The true tragedy of our republic
Same, Although the Libertarians might take over the GOP with all these young Libertarian Republicans.
I'm one of those people.
I am one of those people who is at a moral dilemma. I recognize that i do not have the authority to attempt and direct how others live their lives or spend their money (via voting) but likewise recognize that the system isn't going to fix itself. What is a voting aged anarchist to do?
Hey, remind me to figure out your real name and vote for you some day.
Martyrdom.
I think I'd probably have to run as Democrat(much to my disdain) because of my social views which seem most important to most of the voting population nowadays. My economics are mostly Republican, but most people seem to care about their jobs, yet care more about if a mother is allowed to abort her baby. *face palm*
Personally, I would never serve in the military. Sure it's "honorable" but I do not see the point. If I was ever drafted in the very probable and coming WWIII, I would probably flee the USA. I'd rather live a life on the run than die for those altruistic politicians who want to solve all the world's problems via death of thousands of innocent americans. "Let's just kill people so people don't die." Yeah right. Screw that, it's a waste of life and I won't have it.
Yes, it's a waste of life.
But there is still nothing more satisfying than delivering democracy at 3,000 meters per second from a 120 mm tungsten shell.
Yes "Democracy"
Yes, democracy. That's why they call the M1 Abrams' gun the "democracy cannon".
Solving our problems without people having to die is definitely more satisfying.
With an estimated value of $8.58 million per unit of democracy deliverer
Democracy is rule of the people. Well it definitely is rule of the people when you force your system of government on another nation. That sure is their citizens choosing. I say if they want democracy then the citizens should fight for it.
I say if they want democracy they should seriously reconsider their priorities as a society
It sure is democracy when most Americans are Anti-War. Yet the government continues to fight wars to install "Democracys"
Or maybe even adopt a complete democracy that they constantly speak of rather than a Republic, for which the United States really is.
Hey, I was just making a joke, but you've got a point. What's the cost of national security, anyway?
I'm taking the above question in a sort of universal standpoint. I know the face of combat has changed in the past eleven or twelve years, but we still need the expensive military hardware (i.e. MBTs, fast movers, APCs, etc.) to defend against the threat of another power.
I always dream (I use "dream" very lightly; I abhor war) of a war in which the French, German, British, American, Canadian, Norwegian, Danish, and Australian armored divisions wage war against Russia. MBTs are hardly used, but that would be intense.
The crew survivability and night vision capabilities of the Leclerc, the damage and speed of the M1A3 Abrams, and the stopping power of the Leopard 2A7 would be too much for the T-90. I despise the T-90, honestly. The armor isn't even depleted uranium, and if I'm not mistaken, it's only ceramic plating. That's pretty sub-par when you're talking about defending against a 120 mm tungsten-carbide-cored round with depleted uranium being fired towards your armor.
Leclerc, Leopard, Abrams vs. the T-90
Who would win?
Really? The average Republican I know is a hawk. I know a few who even defend the Patriot Act.
Well, China would certainly come to Russia's aid considering their alike ideologies and relatively close location. I'm familiar with E.Leclerc, the French hypermarket XD.
I'm glad someone knows about the Leclerc! My God, that thing is a technological powerhouse! It's got a state-of-the-art fire detection/suppression system, thermal imaging and a laser rangefinder for the 120 mm, land navigation systems (also state-of-the-art), fully-reconfigurable (and at a moment's notice) electronic systems throughout the entire vehicle, and has one of the best CBRN protection systems in the world. It's one of my favorite MBTs by far.
You're both wrong. The national debt under Reagan doubled from $1 trillion to $2 trillion, in real terms. Revenues increased from around $500 billion to $900 billion. Spending could not keep up with the influx of revenues. Reagan was a big spender. Why was this? Was this because Reagan was a hypocrite, or because he was a neo-con? No, it was because he had to defeat the Commies. The Bush military expansion was done to finance two futile wars, but the Cold War was a battle between an empire and a republic over the fate of the world. The leftover deficits from World War II and the Cold War were the price of liberty, not just America's liberty but the world's liberty. (Or comparative liberty from socialism.) Under Reagan, Communism actually began to be rolled back - in Grenada, in Nicaragua, in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Poland.
But even so, President Reagan tried hard to balance the budget his whole Presidency. He slowed down the growth of the welfare state significantly, cut dozens of federal programs from the budget, attempted to privatise Social Security, attempted to cut $20 billion from Medicare and even pushed a balanced budget Constitutional amendment through Congress in 1982. It actually passed both houses, gaining more than two thirds of the vote in the Senate, but only a simple majority in the House, meaning it was not sent to the states for ratification. Ronald Reagan was given a bad hand, with the Democrats controlling half of Congress for most of his Presidency and all of Congress for his last two years, but still managed some incredible achievements. He created the atmosphere - and the party - that led to the spending restraint and balanced budgets of the 1990s.
Carter was a pretty poor President, but I respect him for a couple of things: starting the trend towards deregulation and cutting spending.
Which would be so much better had the Department of Education been abolished.
A bit of an exaggeration, no? The arms actually went to moderate reformers within the Iranian government.
The Strategic Defense Initiative was considered by scientists to be a very viable project, and actually led to some breakthroughs in missile defense technology. SDI tech is being used in Korea as a safeguard against a potential North Korean strike. And most importantly, the SDI was one of the things that brought Gorbachev to the diplomatic table,
What?
Completely untrue. The mujahideen were anti-Soviet freedom fighters. Al-Qaeda was only formed in 1988 and was not a terrorist organisation; it was hardly even involved in combat. Their main role was organising training camps for foreign mujahideen volunteers.
I don't care for party labels, as they very often can be completely unreflective of the people they're stuck to. I'd like to be a Governor one day, and would probably run as a Republican.
But, really thoe?
Looks like their little 'War on Libertatem' has come to an end :)
The COURT Act Vote Counter
M: 2/3
B: 5/5
H: 4
Fun Fact: 3 out of 4 Australians make up 75% of the population of Australia. The more you know.
There's an argument that government support for the roads has actually slowed the development of new transportation technologies. It may sound like a tongue-in-cheek conspiracy theory, but it makes some good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIDVTGgFeg
Shut up, Facebook :P
Which state would you want to be Governor of?
I think he lived in California for awhile.
California, as my career will hopefully bring me there some day.
Ya see, Pev. In America there is interstate feuding. West Virginia doesn't look Kentucky because of oil. Pennsylvania doesn't like Texas. Iowa doesn't like Missouri. No one likes California except Californians. I can speak no lie.
*coal
And Michigan fights with itself
The funny part is that is true. Michigan is my ancestral state of my mother's side. And she has family on both sides. Thanksgiving up there is fun.
Up vs Lp
Lp rules!
I'm actually confused by how simple that is.
"Charity can't replace welfare."
Where does welfare come from, again?
Self working people who are forced to give their money to the government.
Assuming corruption is gone for this instance, what is a better outcome:
Self-working people helping their fellow man, or allowing said fellow man to starve to death?
Fun fact:
If you were to remove every vein in the human body and lay them end to end, you would die.
Not allowing fellow man to starve, give the ability to eat. If you entitle a child with whatever toy they ask for, they're going to cry when they don't get one. When you entitle peoplewho have the ability to work with not having to work, they're going to cry when you don't. But, teach the child how to mow the lawn and get paid, they'll never cry again.
You know, some people need financial assistance. WIC, food stamps, and small welfare checks can mean a lot.
Did you not hear my story last night? My mothers funds got cut and we were left without money. We received welfare. I don't dislike helping people out. I dislike the current giant. In 39/50 welfare recipients (68% of which still have the ability to work) Make more than $8.00 an hour. Last year the Federal government spent 131.9 Billion dollars on giving people money. If we divide that by 6.8 (68% don't need it), so now we have 19,264,705,882.40. And these people that can't work don't need to make so much. Now, why does the government have to pay that? Why can that not be privatized? Add incentives to businesses that help their communities. It would be a lot cheaper than 19.3 Billion dollars.
39/50 states,*
I live in the mitten... but I love the U.P.
I support the state superior :)
Maybe instead of incentives to businesses, new business can be created. I've said it before I'll say it again... privatize unemployment.
Food stamps and WIC, fine. But there needs to be tighter control on those programs. I've known well off working people who have been on stamps for years! I hate to use this argument, but food stamps is where I truly see people as having no incentive to take care of themselves. People here lie on their applications for stamps and say they are homeless.. truly not realising that they are only stealing from themselves.
Druggies in neighboring cities to me buy cheap soda bottles with stamps and return them for the state 10¢ bottle deposit. Rather sad really. They end up with 10-25 bucks in their pocket after wasting a couple hundred bucks in stamps. Sad really.
[quote=pevvania;6018974]I'd like to be a Governor one day
Me to. Of IA.
My view on that is food stamps make people have less incentive to go out and get a job!
You've all brought up some very good points. I think it'd be naive to suggest that welfare of some kind is unneeded, or that all poor people are just 'lazy'. There is a need for some welfare, but there is not a need for government welfare.
Unemployment could easily be privatised, as shown by Chile's splendid UI model. Unemployment insurance is essentially paying the government for a service that can easily be provided by the private sector; it's just a contribution fund run by the government . National pension schemes could also be privatised (Chile again). The responsibilities of Food Stamps and other programs like it could be transferred to private charities, as could all other welfare programs in the long-term.
But the harsh reality is that most people (at least in America) are poor because of their own choices. http://being-classical-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/poverty.html
Has the Board reviewed the evidence presented by the Attorney-General concerning [nation=short]The Time Alliance[/nation]? Has it made a decision?
YES! Boo-ya
Medicare and Medicaid could also be privatised.
Funny how American poverty rates suddenly stopped going down when the Great Society programs came in.
[quote=ipian;6019554][quote=pevvania;6018974]I'd like to be a Governor one day
Me to. Of IA.[/quote]
My maternal grandfather's family lives in Washington and Fairfield.
Ok.
Welcome back to Libertatem Ron!
Ron?
Favorite bands/artists?
Personal: Shinedown/Alter Bridge
So quiet...
Human Action came in the mail a few weeks ago. Holy moley is it a colossus of a book.
Also, Welcome Capitalsia!
I'm jealous! I mean.. i always could get the ebook for free.. but there is just something better about having a physical copy.
I don't get e-books unless they're short. I purposefully got this one in physical form, so I can easily change between chapters.
It's extremely wordy. The first two hundred pages will fill your head with exotic vocabulary you can only assume is English. But there's a lot of gold in it too - it has a fantastic chapter on "Work and Wages". Right now I'm reading about the 'Economic Calculation Problem of Socialism'.
So buy a dictionary while i'm at it then? lol
What age were you when you got into politics?
I was 11
It was around 11-13 for me, but my idea of politics back then was moronically chanting for Obama and criticising Bush and nuclear power. I was a liberal greenie, until I discovered facts.
I was a Libertarian.
And a bit of a greenie. (I still am)
Cool Website: http://hollowverse.com
I've visited it a few times, but the owner is an idiot with an irritating bias.
Yeah, but its still info.
http://www.cpusa.org Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
"Walks over with chainsaw*
KILL IT!
A better and peaceful world is possible a world where people and nature come before profits. Thats socialism. Thats our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.
https://p.gr-assets.com/540x540/fit/hostedimages/1380420004/833059.gif
:)
There can never be peace under socialism, as one of its core dogmas advocates a permanent state of aggression.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.