• 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!

Cuba officially off U.S. terror blacklist

wow. the bloody dictators of Cuba will CRY the day Obama leaves office, as will most of the other dictatorships on the planet. they have been given "free lunches" for years now and know they have NOTHING to fear from the current administration. I feel sorry for their sleepless nights that will come when Obama shuffles back to being a community organizer. better enjoy the golden days while they last.
What about the dictators we had relations with under Conservative presidents? What about the dictators we propped up under conservative presidents? The great conservative hero, Ronald Reagan loved Latin American dictators...
 
And yet through it all, just an opinion. I linked you the definition, with examples of "state terrorism".

dictionary definition =/= legal doctrine....

but whatever, this is boring watching you guys clamor to have the US recognized as a "Terrorist State"..... have fun with agenda though, I'm sure it'll work out.
 
What you call "accomplishments" I call attacks on the Constitution and our liberties. I guess it all depends on where you stand. If you are for big, iron fisted government, then yes, Obama is getting a lot done.

If you believe personal freedom and following the Constitutions, like the founders of this country did, then we are not doing so well.

I hope your not seriously suggesting that in 2015 we should have to go by some old piece of paper written way back when by white, slave-owning Xtian men in powdered wigs. Like get with the times, man. I think when were lucky enough to get a cool, really smart president like Barack Obama, we should just let him decide what needs to be done, and do it. I mean, thats the way Castro and them have been doing things in Cuba for a long time, and look how cool it is their. I saw a Michael Moore film where they went inside there hospitals, and they are like way better than the ones in our precious U.S.A.

Heres to Fidel and to Che, and to all the righteous progressive people who know the REAL terrorist country is good ole white bread, Ozzie&Harriet Amerikkka.
 
Not at all.

No, you do. As soon as someone counters your point, you jump to a totally different point.

You think with Cuba's history, they should be welcomed back with open arms.

Number of times England invaded USA: 2
Number of times Cuba invaded USA: 0

Hell, we even warmed up to the USSR over time.
 
Not at all.
You think with Cuba's history, they should be welcomed back with open arms.

Why the hyperbolic rhetoric. Opening diplomatic relations is a starting point, not the finish line.
 
Who is that?

Bush. Was it too traumatic for you to remember? ;)

polls_bush_kiss_4632_459157_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg


And what would that have to do with anything?

:shrug: You brought up the subject of presidents supporting murderous regimes (as if that is anything new).
 
No, you do. As soon as someone counters your point, you jump to a totally different point.



Number of times England invaded USA: 2
Number of times Cuba invaded USA: 0

Hell, we even warmed up to the USSR over time.
How about we keep it in the last 30 years.
Cuban boat lift, shelter to a cop killer, holding hostage of US citizen.
 
How about the one that ended the wars? Oh wait...... war is still going.
Closed Guantanamo? Oh wait, still open.
Keep your doctor guy? Wait, no no.

Didn't buy into the "Hope and Change" hype. Nope, didn't vote for him either. Both times.
 
How about we keep it in the last 30 years.

So we shouldn't have had any talks with England for at least 30 years after the War of 1812?

Cuban boat lift, shelter to a cop killer, holding hostage of US citizen.

We have allies who have done way worse. :lamo
 
Last edited:
good luck with that... send your idiot argument to Obama and have him add us to the list... I really don't care.
I think thrilla just proved to everyone on the board that if the US uses terrorism or sponsors terrorism, that it's OK because you always have to root for the home team no matter how they play the game.
 
How about we keep it in the last 30 years.
Cuban boat lift, shelter to a cop killer, holding hostage of US citizen.
The Cuban Boat Lift was 35 years ago. The Cop Killer, you need to be more specific, who? Also US hostage. I noticed time and time again you have ignored the points that the US trained and harboured a known terrorist who was responsible for the bombing of a civilian flight.
 
I think thrilla just proved to everyone on the board that if the US uses terrorism or sponsors terrorism, that it's OK because you always have to root for the home team no matter how they play the game.


I haven't addressed whether our actions are ok or not....I've only addressed that as a state , the terrorist label doesn't apply in any legal sense.

you can go back to throwing your tantrum now...
 
The Cuban Boat Lift was 35 years ago. The Cop Killer, you need to be more specific, who? Also US hostage. I noticed time and time again you have ignored the points that the US trained and harboured a known terrorist who was responsible for the bombing of a civilian flight.

Cuba Protects America
 
I haven't addressed whether our actions are ok or not....I've only addressed that as a state , the terrorist label doesn't apply in any legal sense.

you can go back to throwing your tantrum now...
Castro was a terrorist, but today standards.
 
I think thrilla just proved to everyone on the board that if the US uses terrorism or sponsors terrorism, that it's OK because you always have to root for the home team no matter how they play the game.

When Mustafa’s definition of terrorism is taken alongside Gibbs’s (1989) characterisation of State terrorism as “when a government or official engages in terrorism at the direction of or with the consent of a superordinate”, or as Tilly (2004) has it “governmental intimidation of citizens”, it will be concluded that states can commit terrorism.

State terrorism: definition, geographic spaces and place destruction - Exploring Geopolitics
 
Bush. Was it too traumatic for you to remember? ;)

View attachment 67185399
Oh, so Bush greeted him in the normal way for their country. Well, gee that is significant. At least he did not bow down before him.



:shrug: You brought up the subject of presidents supporting murderous regimes (as if that is anything new).

Yes, so what is your point? Is there a rule that the left thinks exits, that says we must treat all countries the same, even though every single country is different?
 
Then stripped away rights and property of said citizens.

that's true as well... in addition to flat out stealing property.

doesn't make him a terrorists though... it simply makes him a socialist doing what socialists do.
 
that's true as well... in addition to flat out stealing property.

doesn't make him a terrorists though... it simply makes him a socialist doing what socialists do.

To the bolded, hmm??? The US is built on stolen property. Do you really think that only socialists steal property, that America's history and origins is socialistic? Or is that different in your mind. Like when a group of men blow up civilians it's terrorism, but if a group of men blow up civilians with instructions or financing from a state it's something else, not sure what you'd call it, probably not even a crime, probably foreign policy. :roll:
 
You mean like before we were forced by the government to buy healthcare? Or before there was an income tax? Or before the government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on left wing pet projects? Gee, I'll have to think about that!

Tell you what - lose your house and go bankrupt because you couldn't pay for your medical care, because your insurance company dropped you because you either had a preexisting condition or the cost of your care had hit its lifetime cap...and then come back and tell us how 'free' you are now, since you and your family are now flat broke and you can't afford any health care at all. Read my signature quote below - it applies very well.

I just did.

Um, no. You've got partisanship politics confused with freedom. Right now, today, you and every other American have more rights than the American people as a whole have ever had.

You are absolutely cluless if you think the letter after his name matters to a true conservative. That's for democrats.

Y'know, Buckley and Goldwater were quite conservative...but the meaning of 'conservative' has changed greatly from what it once was. In fact, Obamacare itself was an invention by the VERY conservative Heritage Foundation, pushed by the GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and first implemented by the 2012 GOP candidate for president. Obamacare is quite conservative in that we ALL need health care sooner or later - every single one of us (who doesn't die suddenly)...and all Obamacare is, is getting people to pay for what they WILL need so that the rest of us don't have to pay their way for them. I would say that most conservatives today really don't know the meaning of 'conservative' - otherwise, why would they have opposed taking away tax breaks from corporations outsourcing jobs overseas?

What you call "accomplishments" I call attacks on the Constitution and our liberties. I guess it all depends on where you stand. If you are for big, iron fisted government, then yes, Obama is getting a lot done.

You call them 'attacks' because that's what you've been told by the people you trust. Unfortunately, you're trusting the wrong people.

If you believe personal freedom and following the Constitutions, like the founders of this country did, then we are not doing so well.

Yeah, why don't we go back to those days of the founders, when only propertied white men could vote? Women and people of color need not apply! Go back to those days when if you couldn't pay for your health care, tough luck. If you couldn't pay for your child to learn how to read, tough luck.

In other words, guy, 'freedom' sounds really nice...until you start realizing that your personal idea of 'freedom' really sucks for those who ain't already rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom