1. Come and join our community by registering for free here and start discussing politics! HOP - the political discussion forum

Democracy or Security? Egypt

Discussion in 'Polls' started by pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011.

?

What should the US ( or your nation if outside US) do?

Poll closed May 7, 2011.
Support Egypts leadership, we need them as allies , US first democracy 2nd. 2 vote(s) 20.0%
Its all about Democracy, even if it means we don't like who wins 6 vote(s) 60.0%
Democracy first only becuse its best for America..how egypt is ruled is not our care 0 vote(s) 0.0%
other? explain 2 vote(s) 20.0%
Page 1 of 3

  1. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Egypt is protesting...they want new government...some of those protesters want a Islamic one, and are headed by the Muslim Brotherhood..who in the past has been tied to terror attacks and assignations...Others more secular, and just want democracy and a end to years of dictatorship The Leaders have been good to the US, and very helpful on the war on terror and are viewed as key US allies.

    Should we support Democracy and the overthrow of leadership even if it means we could end up with alot less help on security or even a nation hostile to the US?

    Should we support our allies, even if it means saying no to Democracy as we know who could possibly win and that could be worse?

    is our Long term security helped by pushing out these old rulers and helping democratic reform even though short term it could make things worse?
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #1

  2. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    Other: fvck democracy
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #2

  3. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    so your fine with dictatorship?
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #3

  4. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    No, I just dont like democracy.
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #4

  5. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    got a better option?
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #5

  6. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    A republic with protection personal right of rights maybe market anarchism.

    "The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised."

    -John C. Calhoun
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #6

  7. steveox Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Message Count:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    I agree! Support Socialism! Arabs need socialism because they run wild in the streets.
    steveox, Jan 27, 2011
    #7

  8. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    so personal rights, but no right to decide who decides what they are?

    I meant Democracy in a brawd sense, not that it has to be 100% direct democracy to be clear.
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #8

  9. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    1) No man decides what these rights are just follow the principle of self ownership. If someone could decide what rights are you might as well not have them.




    2) Democracy in any sense of the word is dangerous.
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #9

  10. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    sounds more like anarchy then a republic...I have decided my right is to do what ever I want to who ever I want...thus it is my right
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #10

  11. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA

    You didnt watch the video and thus you are left with a ridiculous strawman but your right this is an anarchist principle but it could be applied to a republic.
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #11

  12. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    my video player is not working right now..my whole system crashed few days ago and still repairing and fixing parts.
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 27, 2011
    #12

  13. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    Well essentially it says that you own you and you can do anything you want as long as you do not harm others.
    Apathy, Jan 27, 2011
    #13

  14. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    who defines what harms others enough?

    you can build a house to look any way you want...but your look is hurting my homes value and wrecks my view..you have harmed me in my view...thus can't do it.

    Like the seat belt question...you drive with no belt...we get in accident thats my fault...your thrown from car and suffer major injury..had you been belted in only minor most likely....Your not having a belt on made my costs owed higher...and my insurance cost more. Thus I will only pay you for what I think may have happened if you had been belted in...my rates and the rates of all insured by my company are at stake..not our fault ( of course this does not happen in the real world where the court says true and just guesses at what may have happened had you been belted in.
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 28, 2011
    #14

  15. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    1) It's not your property if you were worried about them ruining your veiw you should have bought the property or moved elsewhere.

    2) They knew the risk of driving without a seatbelt thus they must live with the consequences.
    Apathy, Jan 28, 2011
    #15

  16. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I built my house first you build yours after...I don't like it...I can do what ever i want because its effecting my house now....?

    2. OK so please tell me how you find out how much is my fault for hitting the car, and how much is theres for not having a belt on? Who decides that?

    on 2nd thought don't...its getting way off what i was looking to talk about here...maybe a new thread if you want to keep this debate going?
    pocketfullofshells, Jan 28, 2011
    #16

  17. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,176
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    Ap misunderstands the libertarian concept that you should be free to do as you wish so long as it does not infringe on the life liberty or property of another. If I decide to raise hogs in my backyard in suburbia, that infringes on my neighbor's property (smell, etc) so not ok. that car wreck that is your fault on the person sans seatbelt does nto work because the unbelte4d one IS infringing on your property (in this case your money).

    Libertarian is about equality and fairness.
    dogtowner, Jan 28, 2011
    #17

  18. GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Message Count:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Other: We should mind our own business and stop meddling in the political affairs of other nations. That includes withdrawing any military or financial support for dictators like Mubarak.
    GenSeneca, Jan 28, 2011
    #18

  19. steveox Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Message Count:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Error
    steveox, Jan 28, 2011
    #19

  20. Apathy Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Message Count:
    953
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    PA
    Its at the very core of the debate.. It is one of the two main questions here. Is mob rule a desirable form of government? If so should would interfere with other nations so they can acquire mob rule for their governments?
    Apathy, Jan 28, 2011
    #20
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page