That is true but I admire any president who tries at all lengths to stay out of a war no matter what the reason may be.

And?

You said "Or you think if a Democrat had been in office during World War I we wouldn't have eventually gotten involved in it?". And I simply told you that's not true.

It is because of alliances previous presidents made that we entered the war. Not Woodrow Wilson, he opposed it above all.

I assumed Wilson was a Republican because your post implied we went into WWI under a Republican administration...and you told flat out lies in regards to economic depressions and tried to justify it with some conspiracy theory bullshit that just isn't true. After doing that you turned around said Republicans are warmongers despite all but one of those wars being justifiable. Yes I'm clearly the one who has an honesty problem here.

Your impossible to argue with. Everything is a personal attack towards or from you. I quit, you win. Congrats. :clap:

Take a lesson or two from the other mods on how to formulate and carry out a respectable debate.

I love how capitalism is automatically associated with conservatism, when in reality it is much more radical than liberalism...

Plus, I am nowhere near a conservative. As I have mentioned in other threads, I base capitalism off the moral argument. I don't really say capitalism is good because it worked, here, here, and here.

That's nice; instead of doing what's best economically you do what's "morally" acceptable.

Just thought I'd point this out:
The U.S. did next to nothing in WWI, Germany was doomed from the start, same with WWII, the Russians contributed much more basically destroying the German army. The casualties on the western front were relatively small. The U.S. did beat Japan, but after Germany was defeated they wouldn't have been able to put up much of a fight.

I am saying that what is morally right is practically right. Therefore, I should not run away from what is moral.

So you don't pay taxes if you stand behind this so much, right?

I pay the taxes I have to. It is not morally wrong for me to pay money towards someone else. It would be morally wrong for someone to force me to pay other people money. See the difference?

But you're paying taxes that go towards forcing people to pay taxes.

Your not directly giving anyone money... It depends on the gov and how they want to delegate it. If you give me ten bucks whos to say i cant give it to a panhandler?? Once you give it away its no longer yours. However unless your making 75000 dollars or more you basically get everything back depending on how you file so your point is invalid .

Or you just get put in a higher tax bracket where your taxed even more on your income.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008 and 2009 ( A link to what each salary tax bracket is)

umm im pretty sure thats what i meant.

I was forced to pay taxes in the first place. Coercion was involved. Therefore I couldn't have freely willed to pay to the government.

I'm sure they're coercing you into being a citizen, living under their government, and not immigrating as well.

Sounds like you should go on strike... Taxes were designed for the greater good please stop whining about them... Jesus tap dancing christ

Yes and complete economic deregulation leads to sweat shops, corrupt businesses and wages you can't live on.

Oh, it was proven that socialism doesn't work?
Point me over to that experiment.
What's that, there wasn't one?

Sure, incentives to earn cash would be reduced in a Socialist world, but on the flip-side, in a perfect Libertarian world, a few people would have millions of dollars and 80% of the population would be dying from starvation.

"Why anyone would think socialism is a good idea is beyond me" is the most unintelligent crap I've heard in a while.
Besides being an ideal founded on the principle of egalitarianism, it is also one of few political theories that actually takes into account morality instead of base selfish indulgence.

I don't know where the argument that socialism hinders technological growth comes from. Even if that were a valid argument it's a very weak one because at worst it would lead to out of date technology. The only extreme would be looking impoverished to the rest of the world (but I doubt any sane government would ignore advances made by the rest of the world. Socialism can adapt to and even further and create technology; it's not exactly hard for a country with enough money do this.) Either way none of those criticisms, if they were true, could lead to Totalitarianism by any logical route.

Sleepy always has some nice S#$% to say....

"The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization"
Wikipedia...

I know its not the best place to reference...

If were going to actually be fair in a perfect Socialism world everyone would have the education and knowledge to understand giving your all will be the best for you and your entire society. Of course perfect Marxism would actually be anarchy because government would no longer be necessary. I don't understand why Libertarians insist this could never be a reality (which is true) because people are corrupt and selfish as well as governments with that much power (also true) yet they think absolute economic freedom and power wouldn't be just as corrupting. I find both structures of government in their true form not only possible but terribly depressing. Libertarianism for its inequality and Marxism...well actually I don't have a problem with Marx's philosophy it's just that it's nothing more than a dream. I am for a social democracy however.

I say we just let capitalism win and stop postponing the inevitable. Yes we will lose some jobs but in the long run it will be better for most.

Nobody is going to pay 13 bucks for a freakin snow cone unless of course you are pro bail out then your just an idiot.

Maybe rather then send that 55+ guy who has been promised a good retirement out the door you take that money thats about to go down the toilet and give some to him and anyone else possibly per how many years they put in. However you can only feel so bad since that same person is the one who made that company go bottom up.

F all the ideas do the simple smart and educated thing. You say there will be riots?? Think about how much worse it would be if they got nothing. I mean they can't breath anymore not even a gasp. Its about the same as trying to revive a corpse.

Let them fail so they can start fresh....

I'm definitely not a socialist; in fact I'd say I'm a libertarian leaning towards anarchy, but I definitely wouldn't say socialism doesn't work. It just depends what you think is better personally. The problem with a completely free market is that most big business owners aren't good people. A lot of them will have no problem opening sweat shops and forcing people to work 16+ hours a day for basically nothing. But I am completely against the bailouts. At some point, the U.S.'s debt is going to get too high and countries will stop lending us money. Then what are we supposed to do? I wouldn't even be that pi$sed about it if the bills stated exactly what the money was supposed to be used for. But I read, on the same page, 2 interesting articles in the newspaper the other day. On the same page, one said that the money from the bailouts is being used improperly by companies giving big bonuses, etc. The other was about the liberals blocking an investigation to determine exactly what the money was being used for, citing some obscure paperwork act about saving trees. I mean, what the f*ck people? We should at least decide what the moneys going to be used for if everyone insists on these bull$hit bailouts.

lol the liberals haven't been blocking investigation. We know what happened to quite a bit of the money, the bonuses for one and the "business retreats" the executives went on. If anyone's been blocking investigation it's senators and congressman who the banks have by the balls.

Oh. This is why I should stay away from the political forums.

Ill just become a hermit and move to the woods and live off the land.

gotta say the communist in me got a kick out of reading about the recent legislation to tax 90% of all bonuses paid out by any corporation that got bailout money. it's mostly pointed towards AIG, then again they gave out something like 165 million in bonuses, 70 something execs with million dollar+ bonuses too.

last time i checked bonuses were given out based on a percentage of the profit generated over the fiscal year. how can you turn a legitimate profit if you have to beg for public funding?