• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Leftist are Violent

Geoist said:
No, you probably would have seen many deaths, not from fascism/communism, but from resistance to U.S. imperialist (nationbuilding) policies. Government is violence right? So why is it okay to expand it abroad but not expand it at home?
Click to expand...

peace and freedom always needs to be defended violently at home and abroad. Is that hard to grasp???
 
James972 said:
what could more confusing than Democratic Republican when Jefferson founded it to promote limited govt exactly like modern Republicans.
Click to expand...

Nothing confusing about it, because there is no other party in the US named the Democratic-Republicans.

Ideologies have changed within parties over the decades.

As a libertarian I support limited government in the form of decentralization. Republicans are for limited government only when it suits them. When it comes to promoting their ideology, they are perfectly fine with more government (marriage amendments, foreign wars, war on drugs, etc.).
 
James972 said:
Once again Jefferson and Madison formed the Republican Party in 1793 to promote very very limited govt exactly like modern Republicans do today. Thus, modern Republicans are identical to Jeffersonian Republicans. Got it now??
Click to expand...

They are hardly identical, especially when taking into consideration historical context.
 
James972 said:
peace and freedom always needs to be defended violently at home and abroad.
Click to expand...

Is that what we brought to Iraq and Vietnam? Hardly.

How is your argument any different than the argument of a liberal?

Liberal: "We need to expand government (domestic programs) to ensure peace and stability at home."
Conservative: "We need to expand government (military programs) to ensure peace and stability abroad."
 
Geoist said:
Nothing confusing about it, because there is no other party in the US named the Democratic-Republicans.

.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Liberal historians use the term Democratic-Republican so you wont know that Republicans founded the country. and that Democrats have no place in America or at the founding.
 
Geoist said:
Republicans are for limited government only when it suits them.
Click to expand...

You mean only when it gets them votes while libertarians are for it all the time regardless of impotent it makes them!! Do you understand?
 
Geoist said:
They are hardly identical, especially when taking into consideration historical context.
Click to expand...


seems very very identical to me!! Aristotle Cicero Jesus Sidney Locke Jefferson Friedman Reagan all stood for freedom for central govt. What don't you understand?
 
Geoist said:
Conservative: "We need to expand government (military programs) to ensure peace and stability abroad."
Click to expand...

simple there is no point in having a wonderful and tiny libertarian govt here if we don't have a huge military to defend it. Got it now?
 
James972 said:
You miss the point. Liberal historians use the term Democratic-Republican so you wont know that Republicans founded the country. and that Democrats have no place in America or at the founding.
Click to expand...

Actually, the name Democratic-Republican was used infrequently in the 18th century (those dang 18th century liberals!) Nowadays, it is used much more often, probably for the obvious reason to reduce confusion.

Democratic-Republicans would later form the Democratic Party which was very much for limited government throughout 19th and part of the 20th centuries. But I'm sure your partisan mind cannot handle that reality.
 
James972 said:
You mean only when it gets them votes while libertarians are for it all the time regardless of impotent it makes them!! Do you understand?
Click to expand...

"regardless of impotent it makes them."

Dude, learn English. :doh
 
Geoist said:
"regardless of [how} impotent it makes them."

Dude, learn English. :doh
Click to expand...

you lost debate so want to switch subject to english??????????????????
 
James972 said:
seems very very identical to me!! Aristotle Cicero Jesus Sidney Locke Jefferson Friedman Reagan all stood for freedom for central govt. What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Reagan? He increased federal spending during his administration.

Jesus did not take any specific political stance, though his disciples tried to get him to.
 
James972 said:
simple there is no point in having a wonderful and tiny libertarian govt here if we don't have a huge military to defend it. Got it now?
Click to expand...

You do realize your hero Jefferson did not believe in having a standing army?

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

He also reduced the U.S. Navy during his presidency to small boats.
 
James972 said:
you lost debate so want to switch subject to english??????????????????
Click to expand...

It is kind of hard to debate when you cannot type the language. :lol:
 
Geoist said:
You do realize your hero Jefferson did not believe in having a standing army?
.
Click to expand...

so?? He was never attacked by Hitler and Tojo with modern weapons and even he was not right about everything.
 
James972 said:
so?? He was never attacked by Hitler and Tojo with modern weapons and even he was not right about everything.
Click to expand...

Jefferson wasn't opposed to war, only standing armies and bloated militaries. UNDERSTAND NOW?!?! :lol:


His stance against standing armies was consistent with the limited government philosophy.
 
Geoist said:
Jefferson wasn't opposed to war, only standing armies and bloated militaries. UNDERSTAND NOW?!?! :lol:


His stance against standing armies was consistent with the limited government philosophy.
Click to expand...

You are trying to reason with a stone wall.

It's not worth the trouble.
 
Geoist said:
Jefferson wasn't opposed to war, only standing armies and bloated militaries. UNDERSTAND NOW?!?! :lol:
Click to expand...

goofy, he was not opposed to Revolutionary War and would not be opposed to war if great liberals like Hitler Tojo Stalin and Mao were attacking with modern weapons that take decades to develop and years to learn how to use . Got it now?
 
James972 said:
goofy, he was not opposed to Revolutionary War
Click to expand...

Never said he was. Thank you for confirming my point.


and would not be opposed to war if great liberals like Hitler Tojo Stalin and Mao were attacking with modern weapons that take decades to develop and years to learn how to use .
Click to expand...

Haha, "liberals" like Hitler and Tojo. You continue to discredit yourself.
 
Geoist said:
Never said he was. Thank you for confirming my point.




Haha, "liberals" like Hitler and Tojo. You continue to discredit yourself.
Click to expand...

all believed in powerful central govt and all illegal in America thanks to our conservative Constitution. Now do you understand? Great, you took out Stalin because his kind of liberal central govt was different to you although certainly not to our genius Founders. Make sense?
 
James972 said:
all believed in powerful central govt and all illegal in America thanks to our conservative Constitution. Now do you understand? Great, you took out Stalin because his kind of liberal central govt was different to you although certainly not to our genius Founders. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Once again you are confusing right/left with authoritarian/libertarian.
If you refuse to learn the actual meanings of the terms you are using then perhaps you shouldn't bother going onto debate sites.

Here's a quick history lesson to show how wrong you are

Hitler was extreme right wing totalitarian
The anarchists in the Spanish civil war were left wing libertarians.
 
James972 said:
all believed in powerful central govt and all illegal in America thanks to our conservative Constitution.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is not necessarily about Constitutions but about preserving the status quo. When it came to the American Revolution it was the Tories and Loyalists who were conservatives.


No respectable historian would ever claim fascism is a left wing ideology.

Great, you took out Stalin because his kind of liberal central govt was different to you although certainly not to our genius Founders
Click to expand...

WTF, this makes no sense. I think I'm just about done trying to interpret your nonsensical sentences.
 
Quag said:
Once again you are confusing right/left with authoritarian/libertarian.
If you refuse to learn the actual meanings of the terms you are using then perhaps you shouldn't bother going onto debate sites.

Here's a quick history lesson to show how wrong you are

Hitler was extreme right wing totalitarian
The anarchists in the Spanish civil war were left wing libertarians.
Click to expand...

For once, you and I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom