Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Though so.
Research labs aren't unique to the military and there is no reason why the budget could be switched to something like NASA or another program specific to research and science. So I didn't address that one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US Government Shutdown
- Thread starter Monk Of Reason
- Start date
Research labs aren't unique to the military and there is no reason why the budget could be switched to something like NASA or another program specific to research and science. So I didn't address that one.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
No, they are not unique. And there is a very good reason for that.
Have you ever worked in a research lab?
esmith
Veteran Member
First it appears that the only army bases in Ohio are National Guard. So, I am assuming that this person is not regular army and if even if they are, only obtaining the pay grade of E3 doesn't say much for their overall performance, I am basing this on 20 years of military service. Your assumption that they are training "just to look tough" is way off base. Training is to keep them in physical shape and attempt to remain proficient in combat arms. What would you have them doing, sitting around on their *** getting fat dumb and lazy? PFC"s aren't supposed to be "productive" in a civilian sense. However, they are quite adapt a performing menial tasks.
You were addressing the above to Apex, but I will respond. Ramstein AFB is our major base in Europe that allows us provide a asset for quick response to that theater in case of a crises in that area. You may disagree with it, but most military casualties are treated there. At the present time we have lost our bases in the Philippines and really do not have any large assets in that area, other than Guam which is only a USAF base. We are very vulnerable in that area due to the excessive distance for supply lines. Again you probably have a different aspect to this since you do not seem to understand what military readiness is. At least I get that feeling. You seem to think that the number of military personnel are excessive, yet you seem to have concerns over the mental state of military personnel. At this time our military is stretched to the breaking point in the area of manpower. Why do you think there are so many service members that are serving numerous tours overseas. Until politicians stop excessive use of the military we really need a larger number of combat troops. Equipment and personnel are at the breaking point yet politicians seem to want more with less.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Indeed.
I've interned in 2.
It was actually my mistake. Its in Kansas. Specifically Fort Riley. Apparently he is now E5 but whatever it really makes no difference in the terms of the debate.
Thats my point though. I don't want them to be doing anything. They are staying in shape in case of a war or they are needed for something else. However the overwhelming number of people we have being put in these "just in case" bases is staggering. We could get by with having half as many and still be in top notch shape. Why do we even have an Army reserve if the majority of our Army is not being used?
What is the justification for having so many people standing at the ready?
I respect our military and I have nothing but the highest of respect for our military officers and enlisted along with their families. My problem is with the distribution and mass number of people we hire today for the military.
Currently there are 103,700 soldiers in Afghanistan. We have 1,429,995 total active duty personnel in the military with 850,880 in reserve forces. Of the 1,429,995 active duty personnel 1,137,568 are right here in the USA at bases. Some bases are research based, some are missile defense, but many of them are simply there to be training centers in case they are needed.
Why do we not cut the reserve forces? Or say have the numbers be closer to 900,000 total active duty and only 50,000 in the reserve? Why not let the +50,000 personnel in Germany (or at least the vast majority) go?
Again I don't advocate simply dumping all our forces right now or cutting benefits to any of the brave men and women who served our nation, but simply cutting back on the recruitment and enlisting of new personnel.
The only reason our military is stretched to the breaking point is because we are attempting to match the world. We have no business dictation and dominating the world. No other country does this even close to the degree we do. What do you mean by "vulnerable" in the Philippines?
esmith
Veteran Member
Unfortunately, your concept of what it takes to remain a viable force is very naive. I am not sure what you mean by the statement "I don't want them doing anything". Does this mean you want them to just sit around a play video games all day or does it mean you don't want them to be used as a military force? You do realize that a person loses physical stamina when they are inactive, you lose proficiency when you do not exercise a skill. A excellent example of what happens when the military "slacks off" can be found here. Note this is a PDF file. Task Force Smith: The Lesson Never Learned
Do you know how long it takes to take a 17 year old civilian and turn them into an effective member of the military? I am not talking about those in specialty fields I am talking about just an ordinary infantryman? You would probably think that you can send them through boot-camp, and additional training (total for about 24 weeks for the Army I think) then send them to a unit and they are ready to go. You would be sadly mistaken. It takes training and more training to learn how to just survive in a combat situation and even longer to learn how to be effective. You do realize that in the US Army it takes 7 non-combatants to support one combatant, it is 5 for the USMC. Do you think you can keep someone in an active combat role indefinitely? You have to rotate personnel or they basically lose their fighting edge.
Well your figures are a little off. As of Oct 31, 2013 there were 1,127,584 active duty personnel of which: (note this does not include Cadets and Midshipmen)
Army 427,438
Navy 265,327
Marines 173,443
Air Force 261,376
above data from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg
So using the figures for the Army (7to1) there are about 61,000 actual combat personnel available, for the Marines about 35,000. Now, all of these personnel are not available for direct combat roles at the same time. So, do you see why so many personnel are needed since politicians have a tendency to get this country into combat situations.
You have the reserve forces to supplement the active duty forces in case they are needed. Now hopefully we will never have to call up the Ready Reserves, or the Inactive Reserves or re-institute the draft . However, it is better to have insurance if and when you need it. At the present time the military is using National Guard units vice calling up the reserves.
Ever since the end of WWII the United States made the decision to be a major player in the world and other countries have taken advantage of this by reducing their military forces....let the US do it.I did not say we were vulnerable in the Philippines, I said that we were vulnerable in the Far East due to losing our bases in the Philippines. The reason for this is if we ever, and I hope we don't, get involved in a conflict in this area our supply lines would be vulnerable. You can not be an effective military force if you do not have the material to support combat actions or the legs to do so.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If you read the declaration of independence not one thing you cited is in it. I have no doubt as always those with the most to lose were pushing buttons behind the scenes. However your point was something along the line that America's motivations for wars have been unjust or something similar. Every single claim in the declaration was an actual injustice done by Britain against America and combined more than justified war. If you wish to include the more conspiratorial man behind the screen influence I can grant it (it is in some ways true) without compromising the actual validation of our war against Britain's colonialism. They (and I love them) have a very long history of abusing those they rule. You are right that the distance and their wars on the continent helped us win but I do not see the relevance. We won and we were justified.
Tell that to my grandfather who was shot by a German machine gun after the guy in front of him was cut in half by it. We certainly did not pay the price Britain and France did (France lost an entire generation of men), it was however our involvement more than any other factor the led Germany to surrender and were bloodied quite a bit. We took over on every front we appeared at and paid the price in a steep learning curve. We did not invade because of messages to Mexico but because public opinion shifted eventually. Germany would have won unless we showed up. France was bled dry, Russia had suffered the largest defeats in military history, and England was running out of bodies, we were all that was left. That is the reason Hitler rose so quickly. The German public and military establishment felt betrayed by their surrender of a war they thought they were winning. It was Hitler's appeal to national pride and militarism as well as a convenient upswing in the economy that produced WW2.
I can fit no word in your asterisks that made any sense. Nor would any word change anything I said. I do not care if they took us over we still did what virtually no country has ever done for them after being attacked.
They currently have a military though I agree we severely restricted it after what they did with the last one. This again has no relevance on what I claimed.
We showed mercy at every opportunity. We called for surrender after every success, we saved 2.5 million Japanese casualties as well as 500,000 of our own by dropping the atomic bombs. We treated prisoners better than any country treated ours (though abuses did occur). Churchill wanted to rearm the Germans and send them into Russia. Russia killed off much of the general population as it went (including their own in the western Baltic states). Germans risked everything they had to get to our lines to surrender. Britain wanted to resume militant colonization immediately, we stopped him. We acted by far more benevolently than any participant in the war.
Continued below:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The UN was established by us to rectify another organizations problems also established by us. The league of nations was began by Woodrow Wilson and the UN was Roosevelt's efforts to revise it. It was first conceived or brokered in San Francisco and it's headquarters is in New York.
I can't even agree with anything here. Communism was no economic threat to capitalism. It was however a military threat to freedom. It was no any mythical conspiracy types like the Rockefellers that caused China backed communists to force both N Vietnam and N Korea to invade their neighbors. The one Achilles heal of communism is it's lack of economic ability to compete with capitalism. Slaves do not have any incentive. Reagan knew that very well and set out in his words to spend communism to death, which he did. No Rothschild's or secret skull and bones forces caused Russian to attack Afghanistan or convert China. I have tried to give your conspiracy theories as much credit as possible but they are getting obsessive. Every single place we fought communism was swamped in medical care (many places for the first significant time in it's history), education, and freedom. Your off on some fringe conspiracy trip.
The Chinese were only in the war half the time we were and outnumbered us yet here are their casualties.
•Killed in Action = 110,400
•Died of Wounds = 21,600
•Died of Sickness = 13,000
•Captured & missing = 25,600
•Wounded = 260,000
Total = almost 1/2 million.
Our all included were 128,000 including fighting the N Koreans as well.
In what way is winning 4 - 1 while outnumbered not whipping them?
Not only that but despite China invading in human waves they are the ones who surrendered.
BTW we have manned that parallel every single day since then and have exchanged fire many times. I know a person wounded there in the 80's, I met when in the Navy.
I am just not doing any more capitalistic conspiracy crap. It is an absolute fact liberals both started and lost the Vietnam war. We won every single major engagement. We drove N Vietnam to the surrender table four times when we took the training wheels off. Every single time they stalled, Johnston pulled our bombers back and they walked. When you win every battle the claim the war is unwinnable is another mark of liberal insanity. If you fight a war you fight it to win. It is more humane and shorter in the long run. As usual, Liberals tried to lip service something into being and many men died for their incompetence.
You kind of do not want a nation of tyrants with enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life several times over to succeed. It took a conservative like Reagan to end them without firing a shot. Liberals could not defeat a third rate nation with billions of bullets. The difference can't be more apparent.
You mean al that oil we gave back to Kuwait or all that oil we gave back to Iraq after rebuilding the machinery? This is the worst of all liberal conspiracy crap ever. How did oil barons force Sadam to invade so we could get all that oil we did not take?
We did not attack Afghanistan. We attacked the terrorist organizations they harbor and their poppy crops fund. We also had their permission to do so. I just can't put up with the oil conspiracy crap any more than the behind the scenes string pullers. Afghanistan produces virtually no oil what so ever. Oil - production by country - Thematic Map - World
I am sure you can conspiracy or oil that claim away if you tried hard enough.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
No. I specifically want us to have less total military personnel in the "just in case" business. I don't want our military gutted but cut back considerably. I don't want to take away from any necessary defense but someone is blundering badly or a paranoid schizo to think we need the military force we have today to simply be safe in the world. We could do just fine with 80% of our military and still be top dog in the world by a landslide. With 80% power we could take on the 2-5th top nations behind us.
Best cure for that is to stop electing politicians that get us into combat situations.
Exactly. but I don't need 2 million dollar insurance on my 30k car.
True. But are we in a military conflict in the far east currently? Why doesn't England have ships there? Why are we the ONLY country in the world to do this to anywhere near the extreme degree we do? Its simply not needed.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't think that the war against Britten was unjustified totally. Simply that it wasn't the way we learn about it in Elementary school. We weren't winning. Britten could have easily destroyed us but the massive cost it took for them to send the necessary troops was staggering and they banked on us failing as a country without their help. They underestimated the economic potential the America's had which was a grave mistake. But the typical working man was not affected by the change. In fact it wasn't till several decades later that it even got better. The war actually harmed most for the first many years. And politically it helped the landowners and those that had things to loose but the craftsmen, artisans, women, minorities and many white male farmers were still exuded the right to representation regardless of the taxation.
I would tell that to your grandfather. I would also thank him for his service and tell him he was a wonderful and brave man. I have the highest respect for military personnel but I won't change my mind b/c I feel they are brave. Its irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Though it still stands that our greatest contribution was the manufacturing in both wars. We came in at the very end when both sides were drawn into a stalemate. WWII was worse than WWI for the allies as Germany was actually going to win eventually. However they had wasted many men, ammunition and supplies trying to beat down England.
And again it was the terrible situation we left Germany in after WWI that caused WWII. The reason we helped Germany after WWII was to prevent WWIII
B*tch if you were curious. And no we aren't. All of the allies helped rebuild Germany and England has sent tons of colonies in the guise of protection of trade routes in the past. Its not much different. We didn't totally re-build Japan either. The vast majority of that was done on their own. We have provided a pseudo military support as we have bases there. The bases aren't there to protect Japan though. They are there to protect America and they are convenient places to put military bases as they are close to NK, China and Russia and even if they are attacked it won't risk any American civilian lives as its not on our country.
Kinda does...
They don't have a "military" in the sense that we do. Its a small protective force that is smaller than our own national guard. They cannot invade, provide counter attacks or even produce a true Naval battle. They have no missiles, warships, ect. They are equpied to stop a small invasion onto their land but if someone dropped a bomb they have no real countermeasure.
True. But not for mercy's sake. It was to prevent future wars. During WWI we had no mercy at all for anyone. In WWII we ended the war in Japan to prevent further bloodshed for our side as well. Don't make the mistake of thinking that when we dropped the A-bombs it was to save Japanese lives. It wasn't. It was to end the war quickly which subsequently saved Japanese lives but it was of no consequence. Had they not surrendered we would have dropped a third, fourth ect.
It also doesn't help your case that BOTH bombs were dropped in areas where the vast majority of people killed were civilians including women and children. They didn't drop the bombs just on military targets. They ended towns.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The UN was proposed by America after an almost identical measure was proposed. Either way the UN is not owned by America and nor is it an American program.
Well if you want to live in the dark continue. Just know this. There has never been a war waged for humanitarian reasons by the USA that didn't have alternative measures behind it.
Also Regan was an idiot when it came to economics. I don't blame Bush for the 2007-09 depression. It was Regan's fault. Trickle down has been proven not to work.
In the way that they never sent their full military and it was only the few they wanted to spare for a sort of ally NK. North Korea then as it is now was never a legitimate threat. The Chinese didn't value the lives of their men as much as the Americans did and casualties were not as big a deal. Their population is immense.
What history book are you reading btw? The Chinese never surrendered. The Geneva talks failed and that is why we have the 38th parallel to begin with. Its guarded at all times b/c the treaty was never made to end the war. Technically NK and SK are still at war with each other. The US government never declared war against Korea and its why its actually the Korean conflict rather than the Korean war. We couldn't win so we took the draw.
Your ignorance of what actually happened is staggering. Also your tribal mentality to hate the dirty "liberals" is getting irritating.
I can't take you seriously anymore. That was the final straw. I have to assume your joking or something.
Except the overwhelming vast majority of Oil in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is all owned by foreign companies many of which are American? Its not a conspiracy theory. Go check your facts. Prior to our overthrowing of the government the oil industry was nationalized (owned by the government)
Its not a conspiracy theory if everyone knows its true. Then its just fact.
esmith
Veteran Member
Your above statement is in reference to the Korean War or as President Truman called it a "Police Action".
Now to the facts about why China entered the war. Prior to the commencement of hostilities North Korea was basically a surrogate of Russia. The war would have never started unless Stalin gave the OK. However, it was made clear that Russia would not come to North Korea's aid if things went bad. China only entered the war after the UN forces crossed the 38th parallel and head toward the Yalu. Washington was made aware of this but chose not to believe the messenger (source was from India diplomatic corps). Once US troops crossed the 38th China believed that it was MacArthur's intentions to continue on and put the Nationalist Chinese back in power. In actuality MacArthur wanted the Nationalist to enter the conflict once China came to the aid of North Korea. As to your comment that the Chinese did not value their soldiers lives is totally misleading. In actuality the Chinese top military leader was fearful of the firepower of the air and artillery that could be brought to bear on the troops by the mechanized forces of the UN forces, especially the US. The Chinese army was not a mechanized army but moved on foot and by horse. They were very adapt a hiding mass armies from sight during the day and only moved at night. Why do you think the stupidity of MacArthur's intelligence staff didn't think there were the numbers of Chinese in the North as there were. The Chinese did not have artillery support thus they relied on attacking at night at the weakest point of the US lines. They also relied on the tactic that worked best for them....attack where the enemy is weak, withdraw when major resistance is met. They valued their forces, it is just that they did not have the mindset of the West. Oh by the way, there were no "peace talks" at Geneva they all took place in Korea, most notably at Panmunjom. The Geneva Conference took place during April-July 1954 and by that time the hostilities had ended. The armistices was signed on July 27, 1953.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
This is all historically accurate yes. However none of it really was in stark contrast to what I had said except your rebuttal of my comment on the Chinese value of their soldiers.
esmith
Veteran Member
How about your comment on Geneva. To start with Korea was original divided at the 38th parallel at the Yalta Conference between Stalin and Roosevelt in Feb 1945. As I said the armistices was signed on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjom
Last edited:
Interesting.....I say Reagan might be the only recent prez who understood economics.
(I think of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Bush & Obama as stand-out dullards.)
I wonder about your basis for saying this. Why do you believe it?
I submit a different theory:
- The US was playing chess, where you start with a small number of
men which you try to avoid losing.
- The Chinese were playing wei chi (go), where you start with no men,
but you add them without limit. Chess is only a battle, but go is a war.
Winning requires sacrificing not just single pieces, but even large groups.
Hah! Tell that to Korean War veterans.
(Sorry...I felt the need for a cheap shot.)
We know it's "true"?
I don't buy into the oil conspiracy either....it's a lack of evidence thingie.
Last edited:
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Can we put this in the Democrats say the darnedest things thread?
Presenting opinions as THE TRUTH is dangerous.
It implies:
- One's premises are TRUE.
- One's reasoning is flawless.
- Anyone who disagrees is WRONGO PONGO.
(Note: The capitalized words should be read with stentorian flair.)
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
What evidence do you have for your assertion?
The primary evidence is his reduction of marginal tax rates, rather than
focusing solely on average tax rates, as other tax cutters typically do.
For reference...
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I do not remember making any points about our being militarily superior to Britain. Our Navy was superior to theirs one on one. BTW the best book on military history I have ever read is Teddy Roosevelt's on the Naval war of 1812. Our army was not. I thought we were discussing justifications and who won. Not who's military was best or who suffered most. We won, we were justified. That is the core of my claim.
Bravery was not the issue. The fact we were heavily involved, the deciding factor, and suffered greatly was. We were justified, we won, and we were the determining factor were my core claims.
I think I can generally agree here but we were not discussing tactics or logistics. I thought we were discussing justification and who won.
The resister to Tyranny has no burden to fix the aggressors nation. It is very abnormal for the victor to repair the aggressors losses. We are the only major occurrence of that I am aware of. IOW we had no burden to help but we despite precedent did so in many cases.
What? If a female dog is what was intended how is that coherent or appropriate.
It was called the Marshal plan because it was a US effort. Britain and France had nothing to even rebuild their own nations with we did not supply. There is no precedent in history to what we did after WWII. We even stopped Britain's tradition of oppressive colonialism after it. No nation ever behaved as admirably as we did in and after WW2. Even if you were right is there something immoral or unjustifiable in restricting a nation who a decade earlier had surprise attacked us and resulted in hundreds of thousands of American deaths. That country was a 100 times better off after the war than before it and still is. Almost all of it at our expense.
No one has a military as we do. No one ever has. We are getting mired in irrelevant detail. Japan deserved no benevolence in WW2 yet they were treated with as much benevolence or more than any aggressor in history. They do have missiles, they do have a Navy, they do have an army. I am a veteran. I was trained in all major nations military capacity. Japan deserved nothing and received a huge amount of most everything. Getting into their current lethality is a little diversionary. Again the issue was our record or benevolence and justification.
So preventing future wars is not a merciful act?
I wrote a whole bunch of stuff but erased it as it is a sideline. I happen to be researching the Manhattan project and Truman's decision to drop the bombs last night so I will only give the major factors involved instead.
1. Japan had demonstrated their resolve to fight to the death time and again. Less than a tiny fraction ever surrendered.
2. We estimated it would cost 500,000 American lives and over 3 million Japanese lives to invade conventionally.
3. We had spent more money than is imaginable and could only produce enough fuel for 3 bombs. A test weapon. A weapon to indicate what was going to happen if there was no surrender. A second to indicate the data concerning the first could not be suppressed by an insane Japanese military establishment which was attempted. All the generals insisted they fight to the death. It was only the emperor and his trusted advisors that accepted the facts and surrendered.
I know for a fact humanity was the driving factor in what went into these decisions but to save time lets change the subject back to it's original issue. Are you claiming we were unjustified in dropping the bombs? Forget exactly why we did, you must show we should not have.
We were not attempting to take away a nations military capacity. This was a new war. The targeting of civilians was actually first done by japan in China on an apocalyptic scale. Our problem was not defeating their military we had practically already done that. The problem was the national will and commitment to die for the emperor that existed in Japan and in the form of fear of Hitler in Germany. I am sure you have not read Macarthur's treatise on occupational theory. He said if we had not broken their confidence in the emperor (he actually conceded his non-divinity because of the atomic weapons effects) we would have spent a million lives trying to pacify a hostile population. There is not time to get into bushido codes, everything that led up to this, what the mind set of the Japanese population was, the absolutism of their military and political leaders, etc.... It was your claim you must prove we were unjustified in dropping two bombs that ended war that was already a sea od civilian blood. I cannot even get into the military philosophies that concern the benevolence of a shorter total war in a strategic environment. I can add a thousand justifications for what we did.
Let me instead add one story that illustrates some of them. A quasi hero of mine is stonewall Jackson. He said one time that he would have run up the black flag, no prisoners, no mercy, total red war. That really bothered me until I ran across his explanation of it. He said if you fight the most benevolent way is to fight is total war. It would end in six months, no long starvation, no trench misery, no prison camps, no economic collapse, no endless misery. Compare the total war of WW2 for four years that ended two mighty nation's aggression, with ten years of Vietnam which could not stop a tiny and backwards nations aggression. Avoiding fighting, but if you fight to win as fast as possible. The former created the most powerful and benevolent nation in history, the latter almost depressed it into disunion and despair.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The other program was also a US program. I even told you what it was and who came up with it. Yes we did instigate the UN.
Is that why the employment rate and economic growth rates were at record level even after inheriting one of the worst economies in our history? If you look at historical evidence and data you will go the opposite direction more times than not. Even if Reagan created an economic mess (which he did the exact opposite, unemployment was in the 3.5% range, GDP in the 4%) he buried the most evil superpower in history by economic means. Neither Reagan nor Bush had anything to do with the 08 issues. The liberal affordable crap. Carter began it and Clinton doubled down on it. In 02 Conservatives held a hearing and told congress the bubble was going to burst. Liberals all but physically attacked them and said nothing was going on. As usual they were wrong and when it went bad they blamed republicans. Talk about operating in the dark.
Neither did we. They out numbered us 3 to 1. In what way is that a few? I like you but your are simply making emotional or preference based conclusions and then casting about for any evidence real or imagined to justify it. They were also not defending anyone but themselves. they wished to protect their border by fighting without having to fight in their own nation. I do not care who valued what. My claims are true. We kicked the crap out of them. Another piece of evidence of our benevolence was our having the means to melt the entire infrastructure of China at any time and never choosing to do so. We chose to take additional casualties than to take Chinese lives (this time by the millions). Again we won and were justified.
The Chinese came across the border in human tidal waves. They at first surprised us and we literally ran out of bullets faster than they came at us. They pushed us back. We dug in and got enough bullets and commenced to mowing them down, they called for talks. Eventually the parallel was established. and we have been exchanging shots across it since then. I did not mean China surrendered their nation to us. They proposed a ceasefire and talks when they started losing more people than they could feed into he machine.
I do not care but I never said I hated anyone. I hate what liberals have done. I no longer have enough hope in mankind to be disappointed to the point of hating anyone. I will continue to hate and despise actions that ruin what the betters have purchased a great cost so get tougher or disengage. I think liberalism the greatest moral failure in modern time. I do not hate any liberal I am aware of. I do not have the time.
Then I guess what was below did not exist and so I can end this here.