QikEnuF

And stingrays.. CRICKEY

b18.

This only furthers the point that you are an elitist fool.

Fake because I made a relevant comment with regard to his ideas about decentralization of imports, as well as his wanting to reform international trusts for benefits of multiple states with comparative advantage?

If you know your history, then anyone with half a brain realizes that the libertarian party adheres to American ideals about centralized power and government. You are not novel, or groundbreaking; there is nothing new under the sun.

If I am a fake for being logical, then that simply makes you a nutswinger, being that you were influenced and adopted their ideas, instead of picking it up yourself. Which wouldn't be the "cool kid" way to do it.

b18.

J-SMITH69

once again, nothing of relevance or substinence.

please elaborate on american ideals about centralized power and government. mainly the centralized part.

if america stuck to its roots we would never have our navy in international waters? you know thats not true...

if america stuck to its roots we would never have enemies? you know thats not true either... case in point WWI and WWII

we had a non-intervention policy then, and we still had enemies. im not saying a non-intervention policy is wrong, im saying we'll still have enemies, and we'll still have wars.

its very foolish and naive to think all our problems around the world will be solved, or never would've happened if we had no US presence around the world. and certainly not simply if we were to leave iraq right now

b18.

If America stuck to it's roots we'd never have neo-imperial conquest missions, we'd have actual peace keepers. Protectors of international trade.

The adopted political stance in early American democracy was that of Jeffersonian Democracy, where in the government had little influence over matters of the states, and even less on the business affairs of the states. You seem to misconstrue, this was the subject not the adjective.

Just because you discern nothing of relevance doesn't mean that my argument is invalid or wrong, it simply means that you haven't made a connection.

The word is "substance".

J-SMITH69

yea my bad on "substance" its still closer than your constant use of reductio ad absurdum in the wrong context

this happened before "operation iraqi freedom".

please answer me this:

which country has the united states conquered and taken as our own in the last 100 years?
which war has the united states initiated to conquer land in the last 100 years?
has the united states expanded its borders in the last 100 years?

answer these questions again... instead use iran

TorganFM

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, several attempts on Cuba, Samoa, various other Pacific islands. That's all in addition to military bases all over the place.

But we would never be able to trump the British, they were/are ------- everywhere.

J-SMITH69

add through war to the last question

J-SMITH69

this is taking too long since im sure you're googling away

NONE, for the US or IRAN (unless you want to include hezbolla with iran)

so how is the US on a neo-imperial conquest and iran isn't? both attempt to ------ their influence around. but the US is evil if it does, and liberals love iran.

i don't hear anyone screaming about iran and his buddy down there in venezuela... ooo hes on a evil conquest to ------ iran...

iran and russia... another imperial conquest by iran or russia whichever fits your arguement better.

jinxy

That's WWII ---- and most of them were taken as points to fight the Japanese. The Pacific Islands were ceded back to their people more or less. We don't collect taxes on them, they can govern themselves and we only really stayed there to have another strategic position on Russia during the cold war.