"Santa Claus, I would suggest you read Higgonbotham's The War of American Independence. It is easily the most comprehensive work on the military side of the war.
I'm looking for all those great battles that the French won during the Revolution that you referred to. The French don't even enter into an alliance with us until after Saratoga. It will be interesting to see you talk about Trenton, Princeton, Vincennes, King's Mountain, Cowpens, Eutaw Springs, and Oriskany."

Perhaps if you actually read it you would realize the war of Independence was a world war and direct french assistance on the ground is, again, irrellevant

"As far as your straw man of "militia" as opposed to "continentals" you need to educate yourself again and realize that the entire American force was made up of all volunteer enlistment while the British used conscription."

And... What the fuck does that matter, militia were irregular troops,the Contenental Army were regular troops, it doesnt matter if they volunteered were conscripted or what have you, there was a real distinction at the time between the two, and now in historical literature, which of course you would know if you had any idea about what you were speaking of

"I no context means nothing to you, but that was the context of the posts between Putin and myself when he tried to slight the American forces that sent the British back to fight someone they could handle in Europe, not once, but twice I might add."

Twice? Are you actually considering the war of 1812 as a military victory? Are you insane?


"History relies on specific statements."

Whatever the fuck that means

"In the spring of 1830, the United States Congress debated the Washington National Road Bill that proposed to build 1,500 miles of road from Buffalo to New Orleans.
Congress then passed the Maysville Road Bill that Jackson vetoed."

And... what does that have to say about your completely false claims that the Federal Government is traditionally not involved in research and infrastructure programs when it has over a one hunderd and fifty year history of it.

"These are two specific examples of how stifled the Federal Government was to take a role in infrastructure projects during the 19th century.
Read up on them since it's obvious you have no background in the area."

How about you read about the last 40 years of the 19th century and US involvement in the south and west and realize how wrong you are.

"Thanks for citing "curiouscapitalist.com"
That was funny."

Wow, you're lazy. Curiouscapitalist is a Time magazine affiliated blog, and it cited the CBO report which outlined why you're wrong about capital gains tax.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/05-02-TaxRevenues.pdf

You're pathetic.

Putin, you go right on with your praise of Time magazine if that's the level of your intellect.
Just don't try to misrepresent the fact that the 1997 tax cuts increased government revenue.
Has your monthly allotment of government cheese arrived yet Putin?

Santa Claus, you are helpless when you leave your basic history textbook at home?
Thank goodness you finally pulled your head out of your ass about the federal government funding crucial projects in this country before the Civil War.
Now lets finish your education on the Gilded Age.
So you claim that grants of Indian prairie land represents crucial investment that the nation could not have survived without?
I guess you think that connecting California to the United States by rail set off the economic expansion of the Gilded Age.
What a totally stupid proposition.
The economic expansion of the Gilded Age had nothing whatsoever to do with Government investment of any kind.
The development of new types of corporate ownership, massive immigration of cheap labor from Europe, and innovations in banking finance solely in the private sector was the basis for all Gilded Age economic growth.
The Federal government was entirely and completely on the sidelines for this growth.
The patent office issued 400,000+ patents in the Gilded Age and 95% of those to private companies. Where is the government lead in innovation you fantasize about Santa Claus? It doesn't exist.
The rise of holding companies and trusts dominated the business sector and major it impervious to any type of government regulation. The Sherman Anti-Trust acting was effectively ignored by trusts until the Roosevelt presidency after the turn of the century.
Andrew Carnegie built his still empire with government investment Santa Claus?
John Rockefeller cornered the market in oil and kerosene with government investment Santa Claus?
Vanderbilt dominated shipping because of government investment Santa Claus?
JP Morgan controlled the supply of money in the United States and could allow a panic to end or continue at his whim with the federal government powerless to do anything about it?
You need to read about the Panics of 1873 and 1893 Santa Claus.
Government money ceased flowing into the South after 1877 Santa Claus.
The major corporations came in and dominated the southern economy completely from the end of Reconstruction to the turn of the century without federal government money.
Santa Claus, you are a fool when it comes to economic history.
I read your posts and you can't mention any specific project or programs because they don't exist.
As long as you don't mind being a fool I don't mind educating you.

Santa Claus, you keep talking about "research in the 19th century.
In four post you have mentioned one single research project the federal government ran or funded.
Why not Santa Claus.
Will you please quit making a fool of yourself.
I've given you specific cases where the federal government tried in the antebellum period to fund infrastructure and how Congress or vetoes constantly prevented federal action.
I've given you specific examples of economic domination totally independent of any Federal investment of any kind during the Gilded Age and you keep posting that giving barren Great Plains land that Indians lived on to the trans-continental railroad was crucial Gilded Age investment?
I guess you don't realize that the GDP of the United States west of the Mississippi River account for less than 10% of total GDP during the Gilded Age?
So a trans-continental railroad and all the western railroads built during the Gilded Age drove American economic expansion because they reached 10% of the nation's GDP?

The Federal government did not play a crucial role in either the economic expansion of the country in the antebellum period or in the gilded age through investment or research.

Get an education Santa Claus.

You're evidently too lazy to read CBO's report which demolishes your claims about 1997.
"Because taxpayers can choose when to realize capital gains
(and losses), more gains are realized when tax rates are
lower. However, over time, the increase in realizations
induced by lower tax rates is not sufficient to offset the
direct impact on revenues from the tax reduction itself,
for two reasons. First, revenues will always increase by less
than realizations following a tax cut because gains are
taxed at the lower rate. For example, if the rate were lowered from 20 percent to 15 percent (a 25 percent reduction in the tax rate), realizations would need to increase
by a third just to keep revenues unchanged. Second,
increases in realizations are generally much larger in the
short term than over the long term because some of the
additional revenues in the short term come from gains
that would have been realized in later years.
It is difficult to disentangle tax-induced changes in realizations from other factors that cause realizations to
increase. Capital gains realizations rose by 45 percent in
1996 (before the 1997 tax cut) and by 40 percent in 1997
(after the tax cut). The increase was 25 percent in 1998.
The increases in tax liabilities were larger in 1996—
50 percent—but much smaller in the following two
years, growing by 19 percent in 1997 and 12 percent in
1998."

Major innovations of the Gilded Age
The government played role in their invention or their widespread adoption for use.
The Bessemer Blast Furnace Siemens-Martin Open Hearth Furnace Typewriter
Cash Register Adding Machine Elevator
Telegraph Telephone Mechanical Reaper Steam Tractors
Repeating Rifle Revolver Vulcanized Rubber
The list is pretty much endless.

Give me a list of inventions and innovations the federal government's investment and R&D is responsible for Santa Claus.
I enjoy a good laugh. Especially at idiots who say they will bitch slap someone about history and can't even master a basic textbook.

Read it Putin and refuted it. I guess since you only have one hollow inaccruate CBO leg to stand your fantasy on you need more to look ridiculous.

"According to Treasury Department tax collection data, in 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate cut from 28 to 20 percent, the total amount of net capital gains on assets sold was $260 billion. A year later capital gains had mysteriously jumped to $400 billion. (The capital gains tax cut was retroactive to May of 1997.) In 1998 they climbed to $450 billion. In 1999total capital gains exceeded $500 billion."

Totally contradicts the CBO's poor analysis.

Yeah, Putin, he refudiated that one already. lol.

President Eden, saw that Putin needed some help.

The funny thing about the CBO numbers is that not only does treasury contradict them allow with the House committee study I posted, but CBO's own estimate recognizes the principle. CBO says a that a 25% in the capital gains tax rate resulted in only an 11% reduction in tax receipts.
How can that be so Putin, if a 25% tax cut doesn't generate any extra revenue then the drop in corresponding revenues should have been 25%, and it isn't.
Putin, take basic finance, basic mathematics, quit relying on Time Magazine blogs for real world information and debate with someone your speed, like Garden of Eden.
You two can eat government cheese and fantasize about theoretical Marxism together.

President Eden is a libertarian like you, genius. You didn't even bother to read the CBO report, so it's no surprise that you don't understand it. You can keep repeating the Time magazine zinger though, because heaven forbid any other website provide a link to a government report.

Haven't read the thread...*at all*...'cause I don't really care. But, the title is, "Can anyone defend socialism?", which is a stupid question on the face of it. Of course people can defend socialism. I can defend drug use, legalizing murder, pedophilia, beastiality...you name it, I can come up with an argument to defend it. You might not agree with me, but I can certainly construct arguments. Bad question. Old, beaten down topic.

So people can defend the idea that restricting individual freedom by giving government more authority creates a better society? Have at it Krellin.
You should read the question that started the thread, but I guess that would tax your mind too much.

Defend the amount of money wasted on the drug war without any tangible results whatsoever.
You can get any drug you want basically anywhere you want in this country.
The grotesque amount of power the government has acquired to totally lose the drug war is a "good" expenditure of precious tax revenues.

You are one powerful intellect Krellin.

Legalizing murder? What is that about Krellin.
You might want to post that in the Children's forum.

Other topics you need to post on the kiddies forum Krellin
Pedophilia and beastiality.

I guess those are your standard red herrings. I can't wait to read what you have already copied and pasted all over the web on those two topics.

The crowding out has been occurring throughout that time period, even when the PAKOS was not in power, this is hardly a fault of the 'socialist' party. Also, I showed that high (or so you say) taxes have nothing to do with the collapse.

As for Rockerfeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan and Carnegie, I would have thought that libertarians favour competition?

yeah maybe I should clarify before I say anything else that I'm a libertarian...

but it's more fun to troll topics that have already gone on for a while rather than jump in the middle of them

@Tettleton's Crew -- apparently you have never taken a debate course. Here....in short...is a possible defense of legalized murder. World is overpopulated. Food and resources are growing scarce. Looking at societal trends, it is reasonable to suggest that "bad elements" have a tendency to murder one another. Let 'em. reduce the population as a whole, and reduce the population specifically of "bad elements". Legalizing murder would be a benefit to society as a whole.

I'm not saying it's a *good* argument, but it is a defense of legalized murder.

Open up your mind for just a tiny second and try ton consider other points of view in the world. I *knew* that would get people riled up, because most people on these forums are too narrow-minded to actually consider there are other points of view in the world.

As for pedophilia and beastilatiy....I never suggested I support these things, but - again - open up your fucking mind, moron, because there ARE people that support these things and defend them.

Likewise, fools and utopian-dreamers constantly try to defend socialism.

Do you comprehend now? Damn....I hope you never take a debate/forensics course....

@Tettleon's Crew: Jackass, "You should read the question that started the thread, but I guess that would tax your mind too much. " the question, which I **quoted**, was can anyone defend socialism. If you actually READ my post before going balistic like a narrow-minded fool, you will see that I answered that question. "Yes." Just as people can defend all sorts of things. You, apparently having the intellect of a three year old, naturally took that to mean *I* defend all these things. Clearly, you are a mental midget.

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae33/X_Apple_Head_X/michaeljacksoneatspopcorn.gif?t=1250117349

Screw MJ, http://findmeacure.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/eating-popcorn1.jpg

but they said something about pedophilia

also if we're going with women

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/167278.gif

Ah yes, I forgot about that, but moving back to paedophiles,
http://images.sciencedaily.com/2005/11/051110221344.jpg

hahahaahaha

Krellin,
I see you can't defend the war on drugs.
You are not free to join Barbara Eden's conversation with largeham about internet videos.
As far as being "narrow-minded" if calling the war on drugs what it is "the most expensive, castrophic failure of public policy in the history of western civilization" then you betcha.

loooool Barbara Eden
seriously haven't heard that one yet

By what standard do you measure success? Drug use has persistently declined since the 'war on drugs' was launched. In the 2000s, use of cocaine plummeted and overall drug use by teens declined by 25%.