Who scares you more?

[Mechaman]

Both are just as bad, but a far right nutjob is more likely to have a gun than a far left nutjob.

The far left nutjob will be too high on LSD to do anything, now that I think about it.

[Mechaman]

THE GOOD GUYS WON!  Neener neener!  It (the far left) is a difficult position to hold being as intellectually stupid as it is. 

This is pretty funny. The libertarian zionist slamming the left for not being intelligent enough.

LOL.
Not to say I doubt dead0man's intelligence or anything, but the words "libertarian" and "zionist" are just hilarious when put together.

[Mechaman]

I don't consider myself a zionist though...is everybody that supports Israels right to exist a zionist?

No, I just found Earth's combination of terms funny.
Also, I do support Israel's right to exist, what I don't support is getting ourselves involved in their conflicts.

[Mechaman]

Yeah, that's where I'm at too. 

Would you offer to help if they were attacked and were likely to lose?

No. Tough ditty.

[Mechaman]

Even it meant the death of all of them that couldn't flee in time?  What if the same situation happened in say, Portugal?

Tough sh*t dead0man.
If total societal extinction was inevitable in a way I would expect another nation to intervene in the war to help the nation on the brink of extinction. We shouldn't be playing World Police, we should leave that up to the UN, NATO or some other peacekeeping organization.

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

That, in turn, suggests a lack of neutrality.

What me and dead0man are discussing is US military intervention, whether through aid or direct. Trade is a natural function of society, any nation that doesn't trade is on the fast track to extinction. I can not same the same for the nation that uses intervention of force when it doesn't concern them.

[Mechaman]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

I will admit I'm hesitant for freely signing away on free trade agreements if the nations in question have a poor record on human rights. I have never admitted to being a pure blooded libertarian.

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

That, in turn, suggests a lack of neutrality.

What me and dead0man are discussing is US military intervention, whether through aid or direct. Trade is a natural function of society, any nation that doesn't trade is on the fast track to extinction. I can not same the same for the nation that uses intervention of force when it doesn't concern them.

I understand that. But I am referring to you assertion that the US should be a symbol of neutrality. I see your current idea of neutrality (based on stated positions) as being US in 1939-1941. It may not be true, but is easy to infer from previous statements.

Minus the part about secretly helping one side over the other, yes.

[Mechaman]

I'd like to point out to dead0man and Mechman, and numerous others, that libertarianism and the Liibertarian Party will never grow if it continues to be defined as real libertarianism and "moralf****try." It is the equivalent of RINO and DINO purging (aka political suicide).

I don't expect the Libertarian Party to ever grow.  I expect (hope?) the Dems or the Pubs will turn more towards libertarianism to win people like me over or a new party springs up after the death of one of the big boys with a strong streak of liberty and small govt.

Exactly.