History and facts prove that intervention, policing the world, regime change and fear mongering does not work.

History and facts prove that military adventurism when not confronted early, expands and grows until you have no choice to but to confront it, only then it is bigger and stronger. There are plenty of examples in the 20th century alone.

The facts are I'm more likely to be killed by my neighbor or a 20 something year old virgin who lives in his mom's basement. than I am by a terrorist.

Really? why do you think that's true.....and what rights did you sacrifice for that security?

Seriously, I've heard that "if we hadn't stuck our nose in the middle east in the 50's" bullshit.....and the best you can get out of that is we don't know what would have happened. You can't extrapolate that the world would be roses if we hadn't supported the Shah. Stop buying shit like that...The world doesn't operate that way. When there is a political or military vacuum things rush in to fill it, and most of the time it's not good for freedom and human rights.

You need to realize a couple of things your ivory tower liberal college professor didn't tell you. 1) peace is maintained thru respect for strength. 2) Most of the world does not think like we do, or act in a way tempered by western ideas of human rights and Judeo Christian values. 3)Most of the world understands two things....how big your gun is, and are you willing to use it.

Despite the many mistakes of the Iraqi war, the area was at least stable until Barry decided to remove residual troops against the advice of his commanders. While there were hot spots in Syria and Iran, things were at least (ahem)"contained" until "you know who" started to draw red lines and not enforce their disregard. And now, as a result of the vacuum created by such folly, we are facing a stronger, more widespread, and more dangerous enemy.
We don't need to OCD over the planet's weather as much as we need to focus on the brewing storm in the Middle East. We don't need to OCD over guns to assuage the guilt from allowing the JVs to land a blow on our mainland.

No, Skippy.....of all the guys on that stage, Marco Rubio is spot on.

gosh a ruddies what a collection of non entities and demagogues. Maybe the Putin endorsement will finally get Trump over the 50% mark with the Republican electorate. He is their kind of guy.

HitsRus;1770097 wrote:History and facts prove that military adventurism when not confronted early, expands and grows until you have no choice to but to confront it, only then it is bigger and stronger. There are plenty of examples in the 20th century alone.



Really? why do you think that's true.....and what rights did you sacrifice for that security?

Seriously, I've heard that "if we hadn't stuck our nose in the middle east in the 50's" bullshit.....and the best you can get out of that is we don't know what would have happened. You can't extrapolate that the world would be roses if we hadn't supported the Shah. Stop buying shit like that...The world doesn't operate that way. When there is a political or military vacuum things rush in to fill it, and most of the time it's not good for freedom and human rights.

You need to realize a couple of things your ivory tower liberal college professor didn't tell you. 1) peace is maintained thru respect for strength. 2) Most of the world does not think like we do, or act in a way tempered by western ideas of human rights and Judeo Christian values. 3)Most of the world understands two things....how big your gun is, and are you willing to use it.

Despite the many mistakes of the Iraqi war, the area was at least stable until Barry decided to remove residual troops against the advice of his commanders. While there were hot spots in Syria and Iran, things were at least (ahem)"contained" until "you know who" started to draw red lines and not enforce their disregard. And now, as a result of the vacuum created by such folly, we are facing a stronger, more widespread, and more dangerous enemy.
We don't need to OCD over the planet's weather as much as we need to focus on the brewing storm in the Middle East. We don't need to OCD over guns to assuage the guilt from allowing the JVs to land a blow on our mainland.

No, Skippy.....of all the guys on that stage, Marco Rubio is spot on.

Smh, I understand you don't get it. Nothing you said there proves anything I said to be wrong. Terrorism will not be defeated by military power. This is not the same as us intervening to fight the Nazis. But you are right intervening in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Egypt etc... Have all worked out great for us.

You can keep believing they hate us because of our freedom, that is fine but you are wrong as they have mentioned otherwise. They know they cannot defeat is militarily but they can hurt us economically by dragging us into a never ending war because they know that the people in power will spend and spend.

As for your liberal jokes, I have never voted for a Democrat or "liberal" in my life. I am a former Republican turned Libertarian because I do believe in the constitution, liberty and limited government.

But keep cheering on a First term senator who doesn't show up for work and wins people over with charisma. That has worked wonders for us with Obama.



Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Obama didn't fail because he was young or first term senator... He failed because his policies don't work.


Look Wolves, I love libertarian principles, but they only work and have value among like minded people/ cultures.. Those born from the Enlightenment. You cannot apply them to other parts of the world and expect them to work.
Freedom and liberty exist in the world today because we are strong and have been willing to protect it. Where we fail to do so, the forces of tyranny, despotism or chaos take over.
I don't agree with everything Rubio expouses, but he us principled, has a desire to move America forward, and is open to , and realizes that new ideas are needed in a changing world. Those qualities make a good President.

I am in complete agreement with you on a strong national defense. Where I think we disagree is in how to defeat terrorism. Our military while the greatest on the planet cannot defeat this enemy.

Terrorism has to be defeated by people in the Middle East. Until the so called moderates step up and fight back to reclaim their religion and land, all that will happen is Middle Eastern people will see US war planes dropping bombs and killing their children or their children seeing their parents killed by US soldiers. That will just create more terrorists and hatred. These so called moderates need to reclaim their land and their religion.

Ultimately I would vote for Rubio over Clinton or Sanders. I just don't think Rubio is a great candidate. I honestly don't think any of them are great. Some are good. All are better than a Democrat.

I would probably pick Rubio as my number 4. Obviously with Libertarian leaning, I would like Paul, then Cruz. Kasich third probably. Mainly because he does have a proven record of success. Are those guys perfect? Not at all. I don't mind Rubio except for his warhawk foreign policy.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Wolves of Babylon;1770200 wrote:I am in complete agreement with you on a strong national defense. Where I think we disagree is in how to defeat terrorism. Our military while the greatest on the planet cannot defeat this enemy.

Terrorism has to be defeated by people in the Middle East. Until the so called moderates step up and fight back to reclaim their religion and land, all that will happen is Middle Eastern people will see US war planes dropping bombs and killing their children or their children seeing their parents killed by US soldiers. That will just create more terrorists and hatred. These so called moderates need to reclaim their land and their religion.

Ultimately I would vote for Rubio over Clinton or Sanders. I just don't think Rubio is a great candidate. I honestly don't think any of them are great. Some are good. All are better than a Democrat.

I would probably pick Rubio as my number 4. Obviously with Libertarian leaning, I would like Paul, then Cruz. Kasich third probably. Mainly because he does have a proven record of success. Are those guys perfect? Not at all. I don't mind Rubio except for his warhawk foreign policy.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with any of this, I do, however, agree with helping nations defend themselves (Israel, Kuwait, etc) when they are attacked by the aggressors in the Middle East. I do not think we should be in the business of dictator removing and nation building. Let them figure their own crap out.

What an absolute clown show. I assume Rubio or Cruz will be the last to emerge from the sewer. Trump will run as an independent. Been telling all conservatives I know: President Hillary or President Bernie is on deck. This will surely make some cry out to their free market Gods, but Wall Street is so intimidated by a Clinton presidency that Warren Buffett endorsed her.

Sage;1770220 wrote:What an absolute clown show. I assume Rubio or Cruz will be the last to emerge from the sewer. Trump will run as an independent. Been telling all conservatives I know: President Hillary or President Bernie is on deck. This will surely make some cry out to their free market Gods, but Wall Street is so intimidated by a Clinton presidency that Warren Buffett endorsed her.

Only thing IMHO stopping a Hillary presidency is some kind of unforeseeable event like a big/multiple terrorist attacks that lead the public to reject the democrats, the Fed blows it with their pace of rate hikes, Hillary is actually sick like the right wing media

Couple that with the fact that I think Rubio and Kasich were the only ones that had a chance anyway IMHO. Probably bullshit but I've heard Rubio's background problems are worse than what has been floated already e.g. a hot mistress. Plus, I think he wants out of public life and wants to make the big money as a lobbyist anyway.

I just really hope it is Cruz because when he gets smoked we never again have to hear folks say "If only we'd nominated a TRUE CONSERVATIVE (TM)"

You don't consider a pathological liar sick?

Sage;1770220 wrote:President Hillary or President Bernie is on deck.

Blow my fucking brains out.

BoatShoes;1770237 wrote:Plus, I think he wants out of public life and wants to make the big money as a lobbyist anyway.

What makes you think that? I don't keep up with Rubio (or many of the republican runners, really), so I have no clue if there are any indications of this.

I'll lose it if Trump/Hillary is the final showdown.

Idiocracy might be the most prophetic movie of all time :laugh:

Automatik;1770271 wrote:I'll lose it if Trump/Hillary is the final showdown.

Idiocracy might be the most prophetic movie of all time :laugh:

That's my wish. I would love to see Trump and Hilary debate.

Wolves of Babylon;1770200 wrote:Terrorism has to be defeated by people in the Middle East. Until the so called moderates step up and fight back to reclaim their religion and land, all that will happen is Middle Eastern people will see US war planes dropping bombs and killing their children or their children seeing their parents killed by US soldiers. That will just create more terrorists and hatred. These so called moderates need to reclaim their land and their religion.

Ideally yes. But that is not the current state. The moderates have not reclaimed the land. Regardless of anyone's convictions on the Iraq war in the end we left them to the wolves. The moderates wanted our backing. Bridges were burnt. We have to understand that. The collaborators stripped off their uniforms and left our weapons and equipment behind.

What can not be permitted to exist however is a functioning terrorist state that glories in atrocity. A state that collects taxes from millions of citizens. A state that has the ability to functionally engage in commerce. As state that by its continued existence attracts the most vile elements to its fold. A state that has demonstrated its ability to orchestrate the mass killing of civilians in foreign nations. A state that in the chaos of the Syrian civil war has more than likely come into the possession of weaponized chemical agents.

CenterBHSFan;1770270 wrote:What makes you think that? I don't keep up with Rubio (or many of the republican runners, really), so I have no clue if there are any indications of this.

There was an article a while back about how he probably wouldn't be running for re-election in the senate if he weren't running for president. Seems disillusioned by partisan politics and the inability to make changes. At one point when he got to Washington he tried to pass a bill called The AGREE ACT and it went no where. Has tried to come up with solutions only to be excoriated by conservatives for even attempting.

Cruz on the other hand has been raised by his father since he was a little boy to be the great Conservative hope. He's a true believer.

majorspark;1770601 wrote:
What can not be permitted to exist however is a functioning terrorist state that glories in atrocity. A state that collects taxes from millions of citizens. A state that has the ability to functionally engage in commerce. As state that by its continued existence attracts the most vile elements to its fold. A state that has demonstrated its ability to orchestrate the mass killing of civilians in foreign nations. A state that in the chaos of the Syrian civil war has more than likely come into the possession of weaponized chemical agents.

Saudi Arabia already exists and we send them billions while they spread the ideological disease of wahhabism that is at the foundation of the Islamic State.

Why does the media continue to hide Clinton and the other socialists with Saturday night debates? Could the media be any more blatant in the interference they so dutifully run for the Clinton machine?

BoatShoes;1770930 wrote:Saudi Arabia already exists and we send them billions while they spread the ideological disease of wahhabism that is at the foundation of the Islamic State.

You are an intelligent guy and you know the difference between the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia. You know why the latter is permitted to exist and not the former should not. I can break it down for you but I know you get it because it is quite clear. I suspect you toss this thought out for political reasons. I remember arguing that Obama should ask for Congressional approval to join in European air attacks on government forces in Libya during the civil war. If I recall you said it was not necessary given the UN treaty. Their is more than enough blame that can be spread around. Al Qaeda was the JV team. Now we are dealing with the real players. We all have to realize that.

Democrats can barely mouth the term radical Islam. I doubt they are going to buy your "ideological disease" as a better term. But I must admit I kind of like it. This disease has infected mosques around the world and the internet. Islamic state fighters are not primarily Saudi. They are from all over the world. The US, EU, UK, the Caucasus region of Russia, Central and Northern Africa, South Asia, The South Pacific, and the Middle East.

No politician is clairvoyant. That said we got a mess to clean up. Lets get together and destroy the Islamic State and realize the Russians are now on the stage. Lets not wait until Congress is singing God Bless America in unison on Capital Hill.

QuakerOats;1770964 wrote:Why does the media continue to hide Clinton and the other socialists with Saturday night debates? Could the media be any more blatant in the interference they so dutifully run for the Clinton machine?

she cant hide in the general election.

Skeletons will be coming out of the closet.

sleeper;1770277 wrote:That's my wish. I would love to see Trump and Hilary debate.

Hillary is going to get shlonged by Trump in any debate.