The independent states of America

[FaiL.?]

You think the war was about oil? What a liberal fed dumb ass. Have you ever watched a bi-partisan news network?

Bahahaha. Libertarians. Still a joke. Romney had an 8 year plan to balance the budget. Oh, forgot, no one listens To Republican ideas. My Bad. No one but a Republican or democrat will ever win a major election. Libertarians would be better off supporting republicans. You're just kidding yourself man.

And BAHAHAHAHA. Bush was an excellent president. 100x the president any liberal idiot will be.

If you keep it up man, with the [poo] trolling, and insulting, I can see a quick "booting" of you from these forums. Keep it up.

[Darth Crater]

I want to believe he's trolling. Sadly, that bias makes it difficult for me to judge whether he actually is.

Oh, and the Middle East wars weren't primarily about oil. Nor were they necessarily justified. Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, deposing the organization that supported Al-Qaeda - I'd say that was reasonable. Iraq was more complicated. Some of the contributing factors were leftover fervor from 9/11, Bush Sr's legacy, and Saddam's WMD propaganda (later found to be mostly lies). Probably other reasons as well, but invading a country doesn't tend to make getting oil from it easier.

[WD-40]

I had a thought - an experiment of some sort which a town/city volunteers to participate

What kind of experiment you say?

Well, it revolves about the concept of minimum government that considerable amount of Americans want to attain or propose.
- That means practically everything will be privatized - Schools, Hospitals, Police, Fire Stations/Fighters, normal public areas will also be privatized, roads etc.
- There will be no taxes to pay since there will be no substantial Government and everything is privatized.
- Since the will be no Substantial Government, there will also be minimal amount of Government workers
- That also means, the justice system will also have to be funded differently than from taxes. Corporate sponsorship maybe?

- This would require every citizen to partake in this experiment and show 'responsibility' for the community.
- The citizens may have to make donations or finance projects themselves - road maintenance, schools, hospitals, police etc.

I can make a larger list, but I guess most will get the gist of it.

Would you partake in this?

Not bad. What do you do with the criminals? They run at least $20,000/year each to support in prison.

I also like the Star Trek way of life. No money needed. Everyone has their own place and sings cum-ba-ya...

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

You think the war was about oil? What a liberal fed dumb ass. Have you ever watched a bi-partisan news network?

Bahahaha. Libertarians. Still a joke. Romney had an 8 year plan to balance the budget. Oh, forgot, no one listens To Republican ideas. My Bad. No one but a Republican or democrat will ever win a major election. Libertarians would be better off supporting republicans. You're just kidding yourself man.

And BAHAHAHAHA. Bush was an excellent president. 100x the president any liberal idiot will be.

I refuse to support a party that condones discrimination and oppression of civil liberties. And you honestly think Romney had a plan to balance the budget? He even said it at the debates, "regulation is a necessity." He was also going to raise military spending to insane levels. Look it up.

[Yanoda]

Not bad. What do you do with the criminals? They run at least $20,000/year each to support in prison.

I also like the Star Trek way of life. No money needed. Everyone has their own place and sings cum-ba-ya...

Like I said, privatize everything. That can mean the Prisoners do cheap labor for products or services to finance the maintenance costs.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Darth Crater]

Yanoda, you may have to spell out the logical consequences of such a setup for them. For example, the problems that might come from having a police force that only protects the rich.

Post-scarcity societies like Star Trek are of course ideal. We're a long way from being in one now, though.

[{JOG}Black]

I want to believe he's trolling. Sadly, that bias makes it difficult for me to judge whether he actually is.

Oh, and the Middle East wars weren't primarily about oil. Nor were they necessarily justified. Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, deposing the organization that supported Al-Qaeda - I'd say that was reasonable. Iraq was more complicated. Some of the contributing factors were leftover fervor from 9/11, Bush Sr's legacy, and Saddam's WMD propaganda (later found to be mostly lies). Probably other reasons as well, but invading a country doesn't tend to make getting oil from it easier.

I swear on my life I'm not trolling any of you in any way, shape, or form. I am only stating what I believe to be true.

Bush guy, I like your thinking. Most everyone just hates on Bush for the two wars rather than looking at the facts and realizing that his actions were a response to terror. Also, war =/ oil. +1 to you kind sir.

Libertarian guy, Romney DID have a plan to balance the budget. He also intended to raise militia spending. Swapping Sesame Street and other useless wastes for national security. Seems good to me, eh? The world is very volatile right now. The entire middle east seems to be going through some sort of reform with a push for Democracy. Unfortunately, in times of chaos, terrorists thrive. We NEED defense now more than we've ever needed it. Personally, I am in favor of liberally using our Nuclear stock instead of wasting our mens' lives on petty infantry warfare.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

I want to believe he's trolling. Sadly, that bias makes it difficult for me to judge whether he actually is.

Oh, and the Middle East wars weren't primarily about oil. Nor were they necessarily justified. Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, deposing the organization that supported Al-Qaeda - I'd say that was reasonable. Iraq was more complicated. Some of the contributing factors were leftover fervor from 9/11, Bush Sr's legacy, and Saddam's WMD propaganda (later found to be mostly lies). Probably other reasons as well, but invading a country doesn't tend to make getting oil from it easier.

I swear on my life I'm not trolling any of you in any way, shape, or form. I am only stating what I believe to be true.

Bush guy, I like your thinking. Most everyone just hates on Bush for the two wars rather than looking at the facts and realizing that his actions were a response to terror. Also, war =/ oil. +1 to you kind sir.

Libertarian guy, Romney DID have a plan to balance the budget. He also intended to raise militia spending. Swapping Sesame Street and other useless wastes for national security. Seems good to me, eh? The world is very volatile right now. The entire middle east seems to be going through some sort of reform with a push for Democracy. Unfortunately, in times of chaos, terrorists thrive. We NEED defense now more than we've ever needed it. Personally, I am in favor of liberally using our Nuclear stock instead of wasting our mens' lives on petty infantry warfare.

I agree we need to spend more on National Security. However, I do not think we need soldiers deployed across the world in 100+ countries acting like the world police. That is what we need to cut; bring our troops home.

Also, please do not reference minuscule programs such as PBS when discussing the cutting of our budget. 2/3 of our spending are entitlements. Those are what we need to focus on (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps). PBS is a public good, and many people benefit from it, so I don't see a need to cut that at the moment.

[Darth Crater]

I swear on my life I'm not trolling any of you in any way, shape, or form. I am only stating what I believe to be true.

See, you say that, but when you also say stuff like this:

Personally, I am in favor of liberally using our Nuclear stock instead of wasting our mens' lives on petty infantry warfare.

I find it hard to believe you. Since you didn't seem to get the point earlier, here are the reasons why advocating that makes you both utterly stupid and objectively evil:
-You are advocating the murder of at least 300 million people. I should not have to [m'kay] explain why that is a bad thing. Not all "terrorists" are camping in the middle of a desert, farther from any population centers than the blast-radius-plus-CEP of a strategic warhead. Most of the people you kill are going to be civilians. Now, in any remotely sane world, I would not have to go beyond this point. However, you appear to actually be that stupid. So, I'll tell you a small fragment of what else is wrong with it.
-In case you hadn't noticed, Israel is in the center of the Middle East. They're our allies, but you obviously don't care about that. More importantly: They are a nuclear power. This means that, as they're about to get turned into a parking lot, they can decide to turn chunks of Europe and North Africa into a parking lot. They may even be in range of Russia.
-Oh, yeah, Pakistan is a nuclear power too. So is India. You probably nuked Pakistan because there are terrorist camps there, and in any case they're both pretty close by. Neither is going to be particularly happy. They're both in range of China.
-The Russians and Chinese, at absolute best, might not panic and go for a full MAD at the sight of us launching hundreds of ICBM's. At absolute best, they stay out of the mess and survive. Then, guess what? We've just established the political doctrine of "it's okay to throw nukes around like it's going out of style, as long as you call the guys you're targeting a threat". Thus begins the next great age of colonialism - Russia reabsorbs those pesky Eastern European states; China takes whatever the hell it wants. Eventually they probably have a border skirmish or something, and both go MAD anyway.
-There are plenty of people who care about the Middle East but do not, in fact, live there. There are countless immigrants, people who consider themselves American and would never consider hurting our country. Until we commit the greatest crime against humanity in history, anyway. Every single living Jew is going to be on the warpath. Every Muslim. Every Christian who cares about the doctrine of loving others. Everyone, period.
-Oh, yeah, and depending on how things shook out there might be enough dust thrown into the atmosphere for a "nuclear winter". This will kill all our crops and cause global starvation among whoever survived the mess above.


I have all kinds of objections to the rest of what you posted, but really they all pale in comparison to that, so I'm done here.

[kjeopardy]

I swear on my life I'm not trolling any of you in any way, shape, or form. I am only stating what I believe to be true.

See, you say that, but when you also say stuff like this:

Personally, I am in favor of liberally using our Nuclear stock instead of wasting our mens' lives on petty infantry warfare.

I find it hard to believe you. Since you didn't seem to get the point earlier, here are the reasons why advocating that makes you both utterly stupid and objectively evil:
-You are advocating the murder of at least 300 million people. I should not have to [m'kay] explain why that is a bad thing. Not all "terrorists" are camping in the middle of a desert, farther from any population centers than the blast-radius-plus-CEP of a strategic warhead. Most of the people you kill are going to be civilians. Now, in any remotely sane world, I would not have to go beyond this point. However, you appear to actually be that stupid. So, I'll tell you a small fragment of what else is wrong with it.
-In case you hadn't noticed, Israel is in the center of the Middle East. They're our allies, but you obviously don't care about that. More importantly: They are a nuclear power. This means that, as they're about to get turned into a parking lot, they can decide to turn chunks of Europe and North Africa into a parking lot. They may even be in range of Russia.
-Oh, yeah, Pakistan is a nuclear power too. So is India. You probably nuked Pakistan because there are terrorist camps there, and in any case they're both pretty close by. Neither is going to be particularly happy. They're both in range of China.
-The Russians and Chinese, at absolute best, might not panic and go for a full MAD at the sight of us launching hundreds of ICBM's. At absolute best, they stay out of the mess and survive. Then, guess what? We've just established the political doctrine of "it's okay to throw nukes around like it's going out of style, as long as you call the guys you're targeting a threat". Thus begins the next great age of colonialism - Russia reabsorbs those pesky Eastern European states; China takes whatever the hell it wants. Eventually they probably have a border skirmish or something, and both go MAD anyway.
-There are plenty of people who care about the Middle East but do not, in fact, live there. There are countless immigrants, people who consider themselves American and would never consider hurting our country. Until we commit the greatest crime against humanity in history, anyway. Every single living Jew is going to be on the warpath. Every Muslim. Every Christian who cares about the doctrine of loving others. Everyone, period.
-Oh, yeah, and depending on how things shook out there might be enough dust thrown into the atmosphere for a "nuclear winter". This will kill all our crops and cause global starvation among whoever survived the mess above.


I have all kinds of objections to the rest of what you posted, but really they all pale in comparison to that, so I'm done here.

His ideas are so absurd and impractical as to not even merit response, although it is nice that you took the time to do so.

While agree with him that the Middle East is little but a source of trouble (with the exception of Israel), and that the majority of the region contributes nothing to the world (again, except for Israel) other than taking foreign aid, nuclear weapons are not the answer.

It would be nice to get rid of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, indeed. Nuclear weapons can't accomplish this however.