This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old oneOriginally Posted by Sinfix_15
Stay. On. Topic.
This is why it's so hard to decipher a point from you. You move from subject to subject like they're the in the same topic expecting to draw a conclusion from the new topic about the old one
Stay. On. Topic.
He said the government is acting on behalf of the people and doing things to gain support for elections......
So i asked him to justify the most controversial program in the current time that almost all americans would vote against.
This is on topic.... you're just too simple minded to understand the connection. Step away, men are talking.
No need to thank me. My opinion doesn't change depending on whether you agree with it or not.
Now that we've put that topic behind us....
your thoughts on Chris Christie saying that "libertarianism is a dangerous idea"
All of these politicians swear to uphold the constitution and then attack it when they gain power.
That's a very loaded statement. Dangerous to who or to what? Democracy is still considered a dangerous idea in many parts of the world. I can see how libertarianism is a "dangerous" idea but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it, explore it, or implement certain aspects of it.
Our tax money is currently aiding the same muslim terrorists who did this. Nothing gives me a bigger sense of pride than knowing that my country's leaders send billions of dollars in aid to other countries that hate me, you, our friends, wives, daughters and everything we stand for.
I'm not familiar with this case. Who are the people who did this? Which muslim terrorist groups exactly are we sending aid to?
Syrian rebels.
The syrian rebels are a diverse group and not exactly a coherent one. I certainly wouldn't classify them as a whole as Muslim terrorists. Everyone knows the Syria situation is difficult and complicated, why oversimplify it?
You made my point for me.............
and you also indirectly mentioned another government problem that has become an epidemic.
We dont know who the Syrian rebels are... some good, some bad, some terrorists, some al queda... a "diverse group" as you worded it..... yet the government is content raining money on them and hoping that some lands in right spot. This is something they do often. I'm tired of the government reaching in my pocket for money to gamble with. The government is ok with using my money to send guns to a "diverse group of incoherent rebels" without having any clue who they are while at the same time discriminating against american gun owners who actually pay the money needed to keep a functioning government who is supposed to defend our rights, not the foreign countries.
Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.
PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.
So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?
Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?
Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens be equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?
should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?
Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.
This is not an ideology, it is a practical issue. There is no reason our domestic policies should be the same as our foreign ones but last I checked, the vast majority of the government believes citizens should be able to own guns so that's not really an issue anyways.
I see no reason to.
When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?
When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?
We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?
I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???
Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't consider either situation stable and that's not the only relevant question when it comes to whether or not we should aid the Syrian rebels anyways. That's just one piece of the pie.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote