Traitorfish

Oh, I see. Anyone who says that the Arabs shouldn't be allowed to culturally absorb Israel = racist.

Try looking up the definition of these things before applying them next time.

You know what demographic threat is?

Maybe Paleolibertarian is a good word to describe me, or close anyhow.

"Go on, Mouthwash. What's "demographic threat" and why should we subscribe to such a concept?"

Oh yeah no problem. And again I'm very sorry about the dead baby thread. While I was posting there, I was also doing the first debate thread so I was in hyper-competitive mode. While this doesn't excuse my nastiness, I hope it at least explains some of it. In any case you didn't deserve that amount of crap from me and I apologize profusely.

I was also thinking about that thread lately and I came to the realization that I am brainwashed to an extent. Up until recently, it's been impossible to escape propoganda about how awesome our military is. The commercials were non-stop and everywhere and they usually protrayed our military as saviors of the helpless in disaster areas or went max high-tech scifish to grab the Halo crowd's attention.

This has died down a bit as we have pulled out of the wars and don't need as many recruits. But it was very hard to not let it tint your thoughts here.

I can sympathize with that. Are you back on track?

Hey Traitorfish,

I just wanted to apologize for going full-on aggro in the dead babies thread. I apologize if I crossed any lines.

"Given that the majority of Texan rebels were American citizens who identified as Americans, is it really necessary to talk about "culture bombs" to explain why they, finding themselves a majority, might have preferred membership of the United States of America to the United Mexican States?"

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Furthermore, the actual canonical history beyond Endor does take account of the Alliance's difficulty with holding together. Mothma and the Council ended up making massive decentralization concessions compared to the way the Old Republic had done things. And even then, the New Republic had a hell of a time holding together, and basically relied on the Fleet for its survival at several points - confronting Thrawn and the Dark Empire, dealing with the Yuuzhan Vong (and failing to deal with the Vong), and, in later incarnations of the Republic, dealing with their own varieties of Separatism and, ultimately, the resurgence of a Sith-ruled Empire. Politically, the New Republic and its successor, the Galactic Alliance, didn't work. At all. Which addresses his concerns with it fairly adeptly, no?

I think that his description of how disparate the Rebel army had to be is comically unrealistic. If it were ever such a disparate group of peoples fighting for divergent aims and uninterested in anything but their own little corners of the galaxy, the idea of them defeating the Empire, even the idea of them being able to realistically challenge the Emperor in such a way that would permit his death in a confrontation, is ridiculous. A bunch of individual groups fighting for their own objectives and largely failing at coordination was tried by the Separatists, to a degree, in the Clone Wars, and failed. (Which is why Grievous became important.) It was tried again by the Separatist remnants after Order 66 and it was tried again by the Alliance in the years preceding the Battle of Yavin. It was embarrassingly clear by that time that if anybody wanted to get rid of the Empire, there had to be some concordance, a unified aim, and an alternative vision.

I have articulated my case for patriotism here: http://www.debate.org/debates/Patriotism-is-Justifiable/1/

I didn't invest much time into it, and could do a better job now, but it really doesn't hold that much interest for me. I'm into economics right now. Btw, what is the communist solution to division of labor? It seems like your system would eliminate it, or scale it way down from what we see in capitalist countries.

Knew it.

That avatar looks familiar. Isn't that guy from Tintin?

Well, its not JUST that its incompetent, I think its immoral in and of itself to use violent force against someone who does not harm someone else.

That said, you are right that what I am describing is a little different than what a "Typical" Libertarian would think at any rate.

what do u think of the EU TF?

I honestly don't see what you are trying to say with #1. Its not its inability to uphold a Christian moral order, its that our government can't learn how to leave us the heck alone.

I am without question socially conservative, I think that conservative moral values should be the norm and expected, I make no apology about that. But I do not want the government forcing people to live by those values. I think its useless, counterproductive, even immoral, to force people to live a conservative lifestyle.

How can "Christianism" have anything to do with it when my view of government is more or less unrelated to my Christianity?

Most Americans use "Libertarian" to refer to a political goal to reduce government control, in fiscal and social affairs (Sometimes non-interventionism is thrown in there as well, and I can see the logic as to why it should be).

Philosophically, as in, what I personally believe and what I think social mores should be, I no doubt fit as a "Conservative." But I don't really agree with the conservative attitude with government. People like me are sometimes described as "Conservative Libertarians" in the US.

True story.

Anywhoo, I think you're a cool cat and appreciate your posts immensely. Forgive my spelling errors, I have had a few.

It was an interesting day that I wasted entirely on the forums. Some good discussions were had. I dunno what it is, but the general nastiness has come down a few notches lately.

Hey Traitorfish,

How are you?