Well, you sound like one, but don't subscribe yourself to labels (like agreeing with whatever they say, although I disagree with pretty much everything they say because... I can explain for each point). Yeah, I believe they do kill doctors, there's an entire Wikipedia article on anti-abortion violence. Just because you and them don't support abortion doesn't mean you should condone their actions. Regardless of their beliefs, it's pretty disgusting.

Also, "socalism" is a pretty broad label. You can't just characterize it as "evil" and related to "communism" because that's like stereotyping.

Yeah, I think fundamentalism is dangerous to society even. It's pretty much like brainwashing and it doesn't even benefit religion because I doubt even the original authors of the Bible intended for their work to be taken literally.

Well, it's fine to express your views, but if I disagree with them, I will, but I'll try not making it personal unless it makes me mad, like homophobia, xenophobia, or Islamophobia.

There also seems to be a huge distrust in atheists, even more so than Muslims. And of course, atheists do get harassed or even convicted for their beliefs. An atheist myself, I don't think we even need religion nowadays when we can function very well as a secular society. Morals aren't from religion, you can explain most of them in biological terms from evolution. In my opinion, raising children in a secular household works pretty well, and I think it's best for the children to adopt their own religion rather than have parents teach them an ideology at such a young and malleable age.


"More debt" then[sic] anyone else. You're aware that Obama inherited this debt and spending from Bush Jr. and the other presidents, right? Sure, his spending increased a bit, but it's nowhere near as reckless as you make it out to be. How is Reagan "easily" the greatest president? I've already criticized him A LOT for what he's done and the best comeback I've gotten so far is "OMG how dare you call Reagan "bad" he is so awesome even though he tripled the national debt and he shrank the government and made it easier for banks to go reckless and bankrupt" blah blah blah. Reagan is a bad president. He used "trickle-down" economics and tax cuts for the rich which apparently "trickles to the working class", which is proven to be utter horse-shit unless you're rich. He even raised taxes a bit. He ignored the AIDS outbreak. He has cut Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs, and the EPA, which doesn't really help anyone.

On the other hand, he has done things a lot of Republicans wouldn't have liked today such as raising taxes when prompted, funding reparations for Japanese Americans, not cut Social Security, supporting gun control, ending torture, giving amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, starting a healthcare system in California, and supporting separation of church and state.

I disagree with most of conservatives' beliefs and I have my reasons too. I explained why, why don't you do the same?

I'm not educated in this, but whatever you're advocating is probably way too simplistic for a likely extremely complex situation and it'll probably end up as a disaster is probably why Europe and America are "too scared to do it" not to mention, both have a lot of foreign-policy issues on their own.

Secular government does this too. You simply don't need religion to guide you, especially in the end, if your motivation is supported only by your desire to be treated well in the afterlife, not because you feel kind and altruistic.

Yes, we should criticize the hell out of it.

Ok, what the hell are you talking about? What "colonies"? Why are you always so vague (which makes you sound ignorant) about everything you declare? I've looked through the Wikipedia article on the history of socialism and I don't see any colonies. This is also the first time where I've heard that "socialism in colonies starved everyone". England created colonies in the early U.S. privately by minor nobles, religious dissidents, and later, merchants. The British government, however, had a fairly hands-off approach to how colonies developed in the early U.S., so we have a diverse array of colonies, which doesn't help as your argument is terribly vague. Initial colonies failed for a variety of reasons: lack of financing and harsh climate, and probably hostile Native Americans. I don't see any "socialism" unless you're stretching it really hard. For example, initially, the settlers in Virginia came there to trade with the native population. The merchants were exclusively male traders (no women or farmers, predict how that'll turn out). They arrived for a variety of reasons. They then heavily struggled in Jamestown because of its swampy environment, lack of clean water, refusal to plant crops, and a bunch of diseases, and fatality rates remained high. If that's the colony you're talking about, you're just wrong about "socialism failed our colonies".

And besides, in a lot of colonies, property ownership and landlords are a thing, so that's not really socialism, and it's also been used as a qualification for voting in some colonies before eventually getting removed. Economically, the colonies went through a mercantile system where colonies become mostly dependent on the British Empire for trade and are not allowed to trade with other Empires.

lol

You really think "sharing" caused these colonists to starve.

Here's at least the Wikipedia article of it. I've also reviewed my AP History Textbook

Maybe I'll quote for you.


Further explained below.



Even if "sharing" is bad, what does this exactly have to do with the complex economic and social ideology of socialism aside from that they both "share"?


What are you talking about? Who is "you"? Colonies can fail for various reasons: being ill-equipped, harsh weather, Native American violence, bad management, poor financing, no women, political instability, competition by other empires, and a lot of other things. It's not just "people destroy things if they don't get what they want". I can't imagine people in Roanoke Island destroying its British Empire ("you", I'm guessing) because they're starving and are dying from diseases.