• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING NEWS: 4 Americans Abducted by Somali Pirates Have Been Killed

Thanks for that, Laila. Sincerely. I so hope that Somalis can discover a Somali solution.

As do I.

But I have this horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that Somalia had it's last chance for peace in 2006 and it won't have it again for many decades :(
 
It's time to put together a multinational force to include every Nation that has had a boat, ship, or canoe taken over by Pirates consisting of planes ultra fast heavily armed boats or small ships and go after every little threat they findd ans just sink them.

Make no attempt to arrest them just sink them and leave them for the fish to clean up the mess.
 
Why would they go there knowing the risk?
 
The country is a failure and needs to be invaded and occupied by an international force until it become a stable democracy.

You couldn't say anything more blatantly neoconservative... wtf.. Are you sure you are Libertarian?
 
You couldn't say anything more blatantly neoconservative... wtf.. Are you sure you are Libertarian?

He is a social conservative. He has been called out on it many times on the forum.
 
You couldn't say anything more blatantly neoconservative... wtf.. Are you sure you are Libertarian?




When you have a rogue area that is hindering the free passage of people and commerce, the international community needs to step in. It's no neoconservative to think that savages committing high seas piracy should be hunted down, killed, and thier bases of operations destroyed....


If they were not doing the piracy thing, meh, whatever they want, hell, I'd care not within the 12 mile border.....


Suggesting securing an area from savage thugs, is not neoconservatism. And note, I did not suggest Americans be the ones to do it.


You fail.
 
He is a social conservative. He has been called out on it many times on the forum.




You lie. You have been called out on your lies many times on this forum.


Anyway


I support the right of anyone to marry anyone.
I support the repeal of DADT
I support the end of corporate welfare.
I support free trade
I support the end of prohibition of recreational drugs.
I support Liberty and self determination.



The fact I support "free trade" is the impetus behind my position on somali savages. If you are going to lie about me, at least try a little next time so you don't embarrass yourself again. :pimpdaddy:


FAIL.....
 
Last edited:
Y

I support the right of anyone to marry anyone.

Except when you said, "I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman" in the Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman Thread that you started!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/85744-marriage-between-man-and-woman.html

"I have said time and again, I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, it has no effect on me."

Big government is ok with you, as long as it's not your rights or life it's intruding... funny Rev, you sound more like a neocon to me
 
When you have a rogue area that is hindering the free passage of people and commerce, the international community needs to step in. It's no neoconservative to think that savages committing high seas piracy should be hunted down, killed, and thier bases of operations destroyed....


If they were not doing the piracy thing, meh, whatever they want, hell, I'd care not within the 12 mile border.....


Suggesting securing an area from savage thugs, is not neoconservatism. And note, I did not suggest Americans be the ones to do it.


You fail.

You fail WGB II.

You initially advocated invading and occupying the entire country by force as a means to spread democracy. :lol:

Now you're switching it up...

Go after the pirates... yeah, everybody will agree with you and America's military was negotiating with the pirates and some of the pirates were killed by US forces. Go after the pirates indeed... it doesn't require a war or an occupation.
 
Except when you said, "I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman" in the Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman Thread that you started!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/85744-marriage-between-man-and-woman.html

"I have said time and again, I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, it has no effect on me."

Big government is ok with you, as long as it's not your rights or life it's intruding... funny Rev, you sound more like a neocon to me

What's your definition of "Neo-con", SheWolf?
 
Except when you said, "I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman" in the Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman Thread that you started!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/85744-marriage-between-man-and-woman.html

"I have said time and again, I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, it has no effect on me."

Big government is ok with you, as long as it's not your rights or life it's intruding... funny Rev, you sound more like a neocon to me




Read that thread again..... Please point out where I suggested that the government should dictate who can marry who.


The thread was a test, many folks failed miserably, much to my amusement. :pimpdaddy:

1. I stated I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I never stated it was not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

2. If I stated that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and meant it to exclude all others, I also indicated the government had no business in the marriage business... I can hold this view and be a libertarian. My honest position is I don't care who marrys who, as I stated numerous times. even in that thread I believe.



I am no more a "neocon" than Obama, who was the person who also stated "marriage is between a man and a woman".... Why single me out for making the same statement that your president has?
 
You fail WGB II.

You initially advocated invading and occupying the entire country by force as a means to spread democracy. :lol:

Now you're switching it up...

Go after the pirates... yeah, everybody will agree with you and America's military was negotiating with the pirates and some of the pirates were killed by US forces. Go after the pirates indeed... it doesn't require a war or an occupation.



How do we go after thousands of pirates when they disapear into the country?


You have to kill them off at the root.
 
Read that thread again..... Please point out where I suggested that the government should dictate who can marry who.


The thread was a test, many folks failed miserably, much to my amusement. :pimpdaddy:

1. I stated I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I never stated it was not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

2. If I stated that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and meant it to exclude all others, I also indicated the government had no business in the marriage business... I can hold this view and be a libertarian. My honest position is I don't care who marrys who, as I stated numerous times. even in that thread I believe.



I am no more a "neocon" than Obama, who was the person who also stated "marriage is between a man and a woman".... Why single me out for making the same statement that your president has?

Obama never supported gay marriage, but he recently said his stance is evolving. I don't remember when he said marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guess it was when he was running for office. If that's the case, he was not pro gay marriage rights then. I believe he only for unions, but unions don't grant couples the same amount of privileged and rights. So no, Obama was not and still isn't for gay marriage or equality in that area.
 
Obama never supported gay marriage, but he recently said his stance is evolving. I don't remember when he said marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guess it was when he was running for office. If that's the case, he was not pro gay marriage rights then. I believe he only for unions, but unions don't grant couples the same amount of privileged and rights. So no, Obama was not and still isn't for gay marriage or equality in that area.



Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman' - Telegraph


So I am less of a neocon than Obama. ;)


I am for equal rights, across the board. :thumbs:


I think you misjudged me. :pimpdaddy:
 
What's your definition of "Neo-con", SheWolf?

You honestly have to ask me that? My definition of a neocon is everybody's definition of a neocon...

Bush is a neocon because of his international policies, advocating an offensive military and spending, and the invasion of other countries to spread democracy...

Are you familiar with the Bush Doctrine... ;) :2razz:
 
Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman' - Telegraph


So I am less of a neocon than Obama. ;)


I am for equal rights, across the board. :thumbs:


I think you misjudged me. :pimpdaddy:

I didn't really think you were a neocon because of the gay rights issue... it's mostly because your stance on international policy issues..

I actually read this comment of yours in another thread, just before this...

"Will the Democrats and liberals acknowledge and give credit to bush for his policies of spreading democracy in the ME?"

... so you think nonconservatism works?
 
You honestly have to ask me that? My definition of a neocon is everybody's definition of a neocon...

Bush is a neocon because of his international policies, advocating an offensive military and spending, and the invasion of other countries to spread democracy...

Are you familiar with the Bush Doctrine... ;) :2razz:

The actual definition of a neo-con, or New Conservative, is someone who was once a Liberal but changed to become a Conservative. This happens frequently, often as people mature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of other countries.

The reason I asked is because many, particularly on the Left, seem confused as to what Neo Con really means. It's become a catchall term to suggest something negative but it is actually quite meaningless, apart from its original intent.

I am familiar with what many claim to be the Bush Doctrine but the phrase was never used by George Bush himself.
 
The actual definition of a neo-con, or New Conservative, is someone who was once a Liberal but changed to become a Conservative. This happens frequently, often as people mature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of other countries.

The reason I asked is because many, particularly on the Left, seem confused as to what Neo Con really means. It's become a catchall term to suggest something negative but it is actually quite meaningless, apart from its original intent.

I am familiar with what many claim to be the Bush Doctrine but the phrase was never used by George Bush himself.

Actually neocons support using American economic and military power to spread democracy and capitalism throughout the world. That's what makes them neocons.
 
The actual definition of a neo-con, or New Conservative, is someone who was once a Liberal but changed to become a Conservative. This happens frequently, often as people mature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of other countries.

The reason I asked is because many, particularly on the Left, seem confused as to what Neo Con really means. It's become a catchall term to suggest something negative but it is actually quite meaningless, apart from its original intent.

I am familiar with what many claim to be the Bush Doctrine but the phrase was never used by George Bush himself.

I am pretty sure this a conservative site...

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

The defining position of a neoconservative is advocacy of an American foreign policy that seeks to install democracy in other nations. That reflects both their emphasis on foreign policy and their downplaying the significance of the differences in cultures and religion around the globe. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away those candidates, Sarah Palin.

Neoconservatism - Conservapedia

Favoring big government is always a negative, therefore neoconservatism is negative...
 
I didn't really think you were a neocon because of the gay rights issue... it's mostly because your stance on international policy issues..

I actually read this comment of yours in another thread, just before this...

"Will the Democrats and liberals acknowledge and give credit to bush for his policies of spreading democracy in the ME?"

... so you think nonconservatism works?


Dunno. I was simply opining on what bush said vs whats happening. Honestly facebook and twitter are a bigger part than out actions in iraq and a-stan. :shrug:
 
I am pretty sure this a conservative site...



Neoconservatism - Conservapedia

Favoring big government is always a negative, therefore neoconservatism is negative...

I've not aware of any Neo Consrvative who actually "favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government".

Interventionalism, perhaps, although that might depend on several factors. If you know of any neo-conservatives who are hostile to religion in politics I'd like to know who they might be because that tends to be an issure supported by the left. The same is true of big government.

But whoever gives the definition it seems clear that there are some varying definitions of what the term means, and it will probably change more over time as well. Some labels, and this is one of them, tend to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.
 
Actually neocons support using American economic and military power to spread democracy and capitalism throughout the world. That's what makes them neocons.

That's generally my understanding also but when the term is being used for Gay Rights issues then that might be a leap too far.
 
That's generally my understanding also but when the term is being used for Gay Rights issues then that might be a leap too far.

Yes.......
 
How about we put a few destroyers off the coast and kill any somali pirate who enters waters beyond the 12 mile coast?

Piracy is not the answer, especially when it ends in murder.

Do we include Europeans and Asians who are not military coming anywhere near Somalia?

If so, we got ourselves a deal. Sink them all or none.
Piracy is the only response available to them and I won't condemn them
 
oh well. They were Christian missionaries so they had it coming. 1) For spreading religion and truth be told religion is a problem around the world. 2) They were American had they been French they would have been fine. But because American military have killed Somali's recently. It was a revenge killing done by the pirates. We won't take any action against the Somali's but we should be bombing Somalia with Drones like we do in Pakistan.

I wouldn't quite word things that way - it is tragic, it always is hwne people become victims of crimes like this.

But I always wonder 'WHY were they there?' - They were sailing in a yacht off the coast of Africa :shrug: You know -that wouldn't be my first thought in my life when the world is unzipping. . . lets vacation where there's a high rate of crime.

Other things that put people in the line of fire: traveling INTO a country where the people have overthrown the government and there is no law-enforcement oversight. Traveling to 'vacation cities' around the world that are dominated and controlled by drug cartels. Going water-skiing on a lake that crosses the border of a neighboring nation which we're at odds with. Touching toes across the border into a forbidden country.

My reaction to these issues: what the **** did they think was going to happen when they ventured there?

People KNOW the news - they know the dangers - but they chance it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom