I was a liberal, but then I grew up....

You still did you duty. And got a crap deal comin' home in the bargain.

 

Apparently you dont know the history of the Gulf of Tonkin. LBJ did in fact start the larger shooting war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is no difference between then invading your home uninvited, and invading my country uninvited. I PAID for my country in 1969-1970. I OWN IT.
There is NO difference. It is people making a choice to TAKE what is not theirs.

 

Thanks, but I survived, I got over it, and that was my first step into eventually becoming a libertarian.

There is no such think in the constitution for DUTY. And why, even today, women do not have to register for the Draft in the USA, but males do (under severe penalty I might add), ! So much for equal right!!, but that is another topic.

The 13th amendment is clear. I posted it already. The country does NOT have a right to force me into slavery and involuntarily servitude, which is what the draft is. Not only that, forced me to risk my life and limb, and I will never forget having to body bag 18 year old kids who's lives had not even began. This pushed me directly into the direction of eventually becoming a libertarian and a nationalist. I was sent and used as cannon fodder for a corrupt government using powers it does not have and was not given. The 13th amendment is clear, and it has no exception for the draft/duty. There IS no duty!!!! It is a scam.

 

Liberal principles are what Henry Paulson and the Bush administration, and later Obama, turned to in order to save the economy. Free market principles nearly destroyed the global economy and threw us into a 25 year global depression. Government bailed us out and avoided an economic death spiral - a consequence of free markets.

The New Deal laid the groundwork that led the US to become THE global superpower after WWII. Roads, dams, bridges, power plants, water works, schools... all made possible the highest standard of living the world had ever seen and the worlds most productive industrial base.

Medicare is highly popular and highly successful.

Social security provides at least a minimal basis for survival in old age if one's life savings are lost or run out.

Government agencies like the EPA have in many cases reversed disastrous environmental trends. It all began with the book Silent Spring. Since then, government and typically liberal programs have reined in corporations who run amok and would gladly kill us all for profit.

Those are just a few examples that took a moment of thought to name.

 

I would rather have the libertarian ways of self control. The government lacked a lot of power to take from me to give to you. 13th amendment, involuntary servitude. Get a clue.

 

What a classic example of a liberal accusing conservatives of true leftist behavior.

Guess who never judges or accuses me of anything? Conservatives!

Guess who is always happy and minds their own business? Conservatives!

Guess who is usually smug and thinks they know what’s best for me? Libs!

So nice try, but your BS failed.

 

nothing, legalize it all. the government lacks the power to control it.

 

According to your “logic”... corporations (made of people) would kill all of their paying customers.

Genius!!

 

So you can't even give a logical answer to my post. Got it.

Next!

You said name one liberal program that has worked. I named a bunch.

 

And btw, righties are the ones who always want to march young men off to war.

That might not have been true in 69, but it sure as hell is now!

Also, I appreciate your outrage about the draft. I was signed up but luckily never had to go. Almost joined voluntarily but changed my mind.

 

Lol...What a load of twaddle. You are parroting the same tired, dishonest canard that goes: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain."
Get some fresh material.

 

Someone who thinks they can better engineer society than society can engineer itself possesses both conditions.

 

I sense this is about drugs.

In today's climate, it is the dealers catching the most hades due to them profiting off deluded people. But for the sake of maximum freedom, i too wish the war on drugs collapsed.

 

If Democrats truly cared about the harm they do to America, they would revisit the system used up to say 1900.

 

Too add to HereWeGo's long list, liberal economics has kicked the butt of conservative economics. The worst liberal, Jimmy Carter, had a better job creation record than the best republican, Ronald Reagan.

 

Jimmy Carter promoted and signed into law more removals of regulations and laws than did Reagan. Good going so called Liberal. But Carter presided over the rapid deterioration of interest rates, suffered massive stagflation and presided over the plummet of home prices.

 

Not clear how you blame republicans for war, but if you mean Afghanistan plus Iraq, both were handled totally different.

Afghanistan essentially was our proxy war. We armed the freedom fighting northern alliance and they galloped off to war helped by our spotters who helped aim our bombs. We had far too few men there to actually do much fighting.

In Iraq, we did a full scale brilliant invasion that whipped Saddam inside of 3 weeks. Franks fought a brilliant war.

As to the draft, i was drafted and it amounted to forced slavery of American boys. We did not ask to serve. We were ordered to serve. We ate what was fed to us, slept in the bunk assigned, woke up to that loud yelling and marched where and when they ordered. We did not get beaten but other than that were treated like slaves.

Bush did not used the slave army of my era. His army was higher paid and actually volunteered.

 

But are they sustainable? I think the general idea behind the question that has been answered is not to find something that people are in favor of, but rather find something that creates a net positive.

Is medicaid a net positive? It can be sustained, but only at the expense of those who do have enough to sustain it. That's not a net positive, but rather a mere transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive.

s social security a net positive? Last I heard, it's only possible to sustain with an ever expanding population of productive workers. As healthcare improves, that creates a need for either increasing the amount paid into the system by each worker or expanding the number of people paying into the system. That might be sustainable for awhile, but I don't want to be the one to sustain it. A bunch of geriatrics enjoying their golden years on somebody else's dime are very quickly going to become pariahs of the working class.

Do senior citizens really want their own children hating them for their continued existence?

 

Conservative economics built the nation. Liberal economics only stifle it.

 

I collect Social Security and have the past 12 or so years. Frankly it is a huge bonus. Not by a tiny bit, but a huge bit.

And of course on Medicare, I got far more back than I ever spent.

Democrats do not mind so why would I mind them paying?

 

I see that you are another person that uses imprecise terminology.

There are huge differences between a person entering a "country" and a person entering my home. My home is a concrete object whose ownership is easily determined. I paid for it via the fruits of my labor.

A "country" is an abstraction that represent a political geography. You in no way paid for it, nor do you own it simply because abstractions can not be owned.

 

It is the same by your line above. Your property is an abstract that represents your political geography, so you are saying that property cannot be owned.

And I paid for my country, in 1969/70. I EARNED it, as Robert did. Your home is not different than your country, I earned my home too! For the illegal aliens to invade your home, they first have to invade your country. Both the same.

Your house and home are simply a micro organism of your country.

 

Nonsense. Abstractions are products of the mind. Do you not own your mind? How could you not own something your mind produces?

The concept of a political border is no different than the concept of a social one, like your Jane Eyre book club or your "left handed rollers" bowling league.

You don't own the bowling alley, you don't own the sport, but you can tell that pin head, Jerry to piss right off if he tries to claim he's on your team.

A political border defines a civil society that agrees to and adheres to the same sacred values, and tells very similar narratives to support those sacred values. These sacred values are not the same across all societies, and it's the clash of these values that causes civil war.

 

Actually it is NOT the same as my line above, for two reasons

Without delving deep into the specific topic and risk going off topic, political geography is defined as "the branch of geography that deals with the boundaries, divisions, and possessions of countries.". From the most simple perspective, my personal property is not a country.

Second, my property is not an abstract- it is define as items made by, or earned with, the fruits of my labor.

Again, you are speaking imprecisely. You did not "pay" for you country, nor did you "earn" it. Like me, you were most likely born in this country or perhaps you were naturalized. But countries can not be purchased.

In all likelihood you fought in a military of the United States- so does that mean who did not serve did not"pay" for the country or "earn" it from your perspective?

The rest of this does not merit a second response, as I addressed it previously in this post.