History_Buff

You said you had an IMU on your desk. Are you a rocket scientist by chance?

Regarding libel, I'm against those laws because they are an infringement on freedom of speech. The statement that it is theft of the libeled person's reputation doesn't really make much sense because your reputation is nothing more than what other people think of you. I also think that legalizing libel would make people less likely to believe unsubstantiated lies about people, because they would not assume that libel isn't happening when its legal. I also find it somewhat odd how much of US political culture would likely be considered "libel" if the laws were actually consistently applied, and yet to do so would clearly be a massive infringement of freedom of speech.

I'm frankly not too concerned with that issue, I'm far more passionate about a change to the Keynesian economic system, an end to the war on drugs, and an end to US imperialism than I am to the issue of libel laws, but when it comes down to it, I'm opposed to the idea of libel laws.

On Libya, fair enough. I still object to it on non-interventionist grounds (my view is, of course, fiercely libertarian, US citizens should be allowed to donate to any country or group they wish but the US government should not support any of them on the taxpayers' back) but I get why it happened.

On the embassy attack, I meant the lies and the refusal to send help, not the fact that it happened. That wasn't my only reason for wanting to impeach Obama though (And I did say retroactively prosecute Bush in the same breath:p) and I'm having a hard time knowing who to believe as to what actually happened at Benghazzi anyway.

(Wow, that went on four posts:p)

And then, of course, neither side will dare consider cutting spending. Look, I don't agree with it, but I get why liberals want a strong safety net, the healthcare law (My personal solution is a bit distasteful, although it makes sense through the lens of the NAP) and I get why conservatives want a strong national defense. Here's what I don't get, the obsessive amount of money being spent on the war on drugs, foreign wars, and the fact that we STILL have over sixty-thousand troops in Germany and that NOBODY is talking about cutting that, although the cut would not hurt a single American citizen (Since Germany is not under threat of attack, they can learn how to deal with their own defense in the meantime. America cannot afford to defend the entire world.)

As for the Democrats, Obama was claimng that Bush had started "Two wars on a credit card" which I rather upset my family by "High fiving" him for, although I of course pointed out that most Democrats agreed with him at the time. But that doesn't mean they ever had a real dedication to peace.

I'm just disgusted with American Politics. I am, of course, aware that taxes do actually raise revenue (So are most libertarians, its Republicans who live in la la land and pretend like "Tax cut" without any spending cuts will magically increase revenue.) Thus the Democrats are at least sort of giving a tenable solution. But their solution is, of course, just take more of the GDP, rather than actually fixing the deficit, the debt, exc. I'm not an economics student but I think Keynesianism from what I know of it is among the most criminal things possible, it screws over an awful lot of people to accomplish its goals.

On your first post, I get what your saying, and I'm not saying that those who supported Afghanistan (My own favorite politican did after all, later regretting it because he felt we did it wrong, which is exactly how I feel about it) makes you or anyone else a neocon. But unfortunately I think "Leaving the country as was" was the lesser evil. I don't even think we should have taken the Taliban down (Or set them up prior but that's another story). All we should have done is destroyed the terrorist camps and left. Probably without even putting any troops on the ground. I'm sure we could have done that by air in a way that didn't destroy a single American life and relatively few Afghani lives (I admit I don't really know how densely populated the country is or where the camps were so I don't have the perfect answer here.)

What I don't get is why so many Democrats voted for it. I thought they were supposed to be the peace party? If they actually acted like one they might sometimes get my vote. As it stands I will likely throw my vote at a wall perpetually because I think both parties are utterly useless for even accomplishing half of what I believe in.

Bush deserved impeachment, and now Obama deserves it himself. Bush for Iraq, Obama for the combination of Benghazzi, the war in Libya to begin with, troop surge in Afghanistan (Deploying troops anywhere without a congressional declaration of war should be treated as unconstitutional as it historically was) and the newest NDAA which now allows indefinite detention of US citizens without trial.

They should both be tried simutanoeusly.

I don't really think we should have ever invaded Afghanistan other than just to go after the Al Queda guys. I really don't care what government they have, and most of them don't really want liberal democracy so why force it on them? I get why you'd support a war with Afghanistan though. It was less stupid than Iraq. Iraq was so dumb that even my dad disagreed with it, and he's ALMOST "Republican 101".

I despise neo-cons with a passion. I used to be one when I understood virtually nothing, but they completely sicken me. At least liberals (I feel) want to take money from those who are more well off in order to help those that they perceive as having too little. Neo-conservatism helps an elite and screws pretty much everyone else over, whether they be taxpayers in this country or taxpayers somewhere else.

I don't even understand why we were in Iraq. Part of me thinks it was just an act of vengeance for Bush's father (I don't think the first war with Iraq should have happened either, or indeed any war America has been in since WWII). Sadly, Obama has compromised far more with Republicans on the Warfare state than he has anything else, which is absolutely the most despicalbe thing about the GOP IMO.

I don't really care that Saddam died. He at least deserved it, and was pretty obviously guilty. Its all the other deaths that enrage me.

When you're spending five times as much on "Defense" as the second highest nation, and you've got troops in over 100 countries, and people are complaing that we aren't spending enough, you've got and problem.

Show me a democrat who will solve this, and I'd vote for them over any pro-war Republican who wants more war any day.

As far as I've concerned both of these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) were a waste of our soldiers' lives and our nation's monetary supply. Sadly, most Democrats voted for both as well (Afghanistan had pretty much no dissent, IIRC, although Ron Paul later regretted his vote for it and rightfully so because the US government screwed it up like they do everything else and didn't focus all their resources on Al Queda itself) and yet people like Obama put all the blame on Bush (I think Bush was a deplorable President BTW, but the Democrats in congress that voted for the thing, which includes VP Biden, share in the responsibility.)

Your mention of Iraq just made me think of our previous discussion about the death penalty where (IIRC this was you) you said that you supported the death penalty for genocide until Saddam Hussein was executed. Was that correct?

IMO my problem with Iraq wasn't Saddam's death but the fact that a million and a half people, most of them innocent, died because of us.

I posted a reply to what you said in the 'Does this exist' thread. I'd also like to apologize directly for being overly-sarcastic in my earlier posts in that thread.

I noticed you were familiar with BF3. I've been interested in giving it a go. Any idea where I can get a copy?

I don't know what that menas, but thank you! You seem cool. Do you enjoy the great Ottoman Empire?

We have similar names. Lets be friends!