So add "straw man" and possibly "tolling" to the list of words you aren't using properly.
I am simply challenging your piss poor vocabulary and how it undermines the points you appear to be trying to make. "Neoconservative" has nothing to do with support of domestic policing. "Authoritarian" has nothing to do with establishing a state currency. A "straw man" has nothing to do with challenging that someone's argument is a non sequitur. I mean seriously, man, do you think a jump from "Neocon" to "Authoritarian" to National currency without even a hint of even trying to connect your disparate dots is something other than bizarre?
Can I assume you meant "definition" and that you weren't actually directly quoting me?
You haven't made an argument that needs addressing yet, just a series of bizarre claims with no rational argument attached to them.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider substantive in your argument?
Well first off I use an iPad for this forum so sometimes the autocorrect on my typing switches the vocabulary, so yes detention meant definition.
Second of all, when I say believing in a national currency, I am suggesting that the entire purpose of a national currency was the creation of the state to dictate the value of the currency as opposed to the consumers, in a sense, with the ability to devalue to national currency, the republicans, were successfully able to switch the entire philosophy of the Democratic Party, why? By inflating the currency the republicans were able to prop up the export sector of business, doing so led to the progressive movement of the Democratic Party. Historically speaking, however, the democrats were infiltrated shortly after by authoritarians as well. This does not negate the fact that the Republican Party was created by authoritarians who wanted to inflate the currency and the only way they could do so is with a national currency.
The very definition of an elastic currency is authoritarian, because it calls for monetary policy to allocate power to certain industries. I could get into the dynamics of how it does his, but I would suggest reading up on supporters of the national bank in order to really understand this concept
Second, the substance of my argument stems from the inherent fact that having a police force that kills innocent lives, regardless of your own morals on the subject, leads us to believe we have room to revise the actual system itself to give any attempt to remedy the situation. In short, the police force need a complete redesign because they are becoming more and more militarized, and my argument is that it's the ultimate outcome of any state controlled institution is to eventually evolve to a huge totalitarian system on the premises of complete control
Thirdly, in the equating it to the neocon is the fact that
A. Neocons support torture
B. Neocons support the federalization of police force by voting unanimously for additional power of the national spy grid
C. Neocons historically support the military industrial complex by spending more and more on proxy wars that have no end in sight
In short, neocons, support an authoritarian state, historically republicans support an authoritarian state; research why the Republican Party started public schools. As well as in a political sense, when the left; who I do not agree with at all as well, suggest the police need to be reformed the neocons attack them in a partisan battle which really holds no bearing or water.
So by challenging my vocabulary what you're actually doing is what Ludwig v. Mises said about socialists, the only time people can actually respond in a factual matter is when they will, when they can't create a substantial argument they will attack what is perceived as character flaws. This holds truth to your particular style of debate.