I'll ask you the same favor, spell corrected...Please if you are going to insult me please be intelligent about it.

I would bet that 90% of those claiming to be 'conservative' really meet definition 2 for neocon. I think you clearly fit definition 2.
It is not a complete definition, describing only a small part of their political mindset, but describes the people like you that call themselves 'conservative' today. They do not resemble the people called 'conservative' when I grew up, just as you don't. Back then you all were called jingoists, among other things.
And no, I do not believe in promoting national interest abroad with military actions in almost every case, with exceptions for when we've been actually attacked.

Once again you just spew hyperbole trash.

You can apologize after your read facts. You do know hat a fact is. It is truth. AS of 2014 24% of Americans describe themselves as Liberals and 37% conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx


As for you call me a Necon. then you add you own definition is just stupid on your part.

From Webster Dictionary.
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
------------
Clearly I am not nor ever Item 1
Item 2 is promoting National interest abroad. clearly not what you defined. and B) you would probably fit under this definition.

Please if you are going to insult me please me intelligent about it.

Take your time take off you Liberal rose-colored glasses and realize the if it was not for Republicans there would be no civil rights legislation.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Once again you talk smack.

EDIT: I answered my own question about this. Apparently "US Citizens Living Abroad" is one of the exemptions to the mandate/rule. So nevermind the below.

As a US citizen living outside the US, one thing that concerns me is the health care / insurance mandate and penalties.

I live in Thailand, and have health insurance through the nearly-universal Thai healthcare system because I have a job that pays in to it. On top of that, I have insurance through a private insurer based in the UK.

The Thai system is really good. A few years ago, I had something like 5 episodes of tonsillitis in one year, and my doc told me that I should consider getting a tonsillectomy. I opted to go for it, and the Thai govt. insurance paid for the entire operation except for about $30 that I had to pay myself because I opted to stay in a private, air conditioned room for a recovery night instead of the busy public ward. Other than that, it cost me absolutely nothing.

The private insurer I have is for any travel outside Thailand and backup purposes; it has a higher max payout and would allow for more optional treatments to major things. I haven't made any claims against it so far, but it is a nice safety net. The only downside to it is that it works "around the world*" (*except in the US, because that system is so f*&^ed up they wash their hands of it). So, on the rare occasions where I make a trip back home to the US, I'm technically uninsured.

Signing up for Obamacare would be pretty pointless for me. I've been in Thailand for about 10 years, and during that time I've been back to the US only twice for a sum total of about a month and a half. But technically, it seems that I may be subject to penalties since I don't have any US insurance coverage. No idea if there are exceptions for expats or not.

I've been active to varying degrees over those years. Sift was the closest thing I had to a familiar home while I was living abroad for 4 years. Thanks for that.

If driving lessons with an IFV in an urban environment are a neccessity, it really is smart to do it abroad -- like this British FV510 in a German town.

That's kind of a silly thing to say.
Do you really think they could say anything even if they wanted to?

They have no choice but to return respect, even when it's not given in return. It's their Royalty. And in cultures that are so closely ruled by the system, no one would ever dare speak up against them. (out of fear)
You never speak out against those who rule you. Speaking up against the Saudi Royalty would mean instant death.


Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan Al-Saud, who spoke to RT from Dusseldorf, Germany, confirmed reports of increased prosecution of anti-government activists and said that it’s exactly what forced him to defect from his family. He accused the monarchy of corruption and silencing all voices of dissent and explained how the Saudi mechanism for suppression functioned.

“There is no independent judiciary, as both police and the prosecutor’s office are accountable to the Interior Ministry. This ministry’s officials investigate ‘crimes’ (they call them crimes), related to freedom of speech. So they fabricate evidence, don’t allow people to have attorneys”, the prince told RT Arabic. “Even if a court rules to release such a ‘criminal’, the Ministry of Interior keeps him in prison, even though there is a court order to release him. There have even been killings! Killings! And as for the external opposition, Saudi intelligence forces find these people abroad! There is no safety inside or outside the country.”
http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/

Transcript: http://truth-out.org/news/item/27901-noam-chomsky-talks-us-militarism-and-capitalism-at-home-and-abroad

As an American who has been living in not the USA for about 9 years now, here's a thought:

Compare the attitude of these guys with the attitude of your average American visiting anywhere else. This chipper dude's been up since 3:30 chatting up the locals and draping himself in the local flag. Average American abroad is probably busy asking where the nearest McDonalds or Starbucks is, and complaining about how they can't get any help from someone who speaks English (even if they are in, say, London)...

/I'd tag with sarcasm, but I'm only halfway there.

I have a friend who I went to school with who is gay. There was a group of about five or six of us who were really close friends. We all suspected he was gay but it just wasn't an issue and it never came up in conversation or anything. When we finished school his family moved abroad for a couple of years but then things went a bit wrong for them and they moved back. It was great to see him again.

After about a month of him being back we'd seen each other a few times and I got a phone call from him. He sounded a little weird, like something was up and he said 'I've got something to tell you.'

I said straight away 'are you gay?'

There was a huge pause and he eventually said 'Er, yes. You're the third person to say that.'

I told him we'd suspected it for a long time. It never came up in the same way that you wouldn't turn round to one of us and say 'hey, you like girls, right?' It was an all boys school so there weren't girls around all the time to force the issue. None of us were mega cool and although a few had girlfriends every now and then none of them were particularly serious so most of the time when we hung out it was just the guys anyway.

Even so we'd all got a reasonable gaydar on us and knew he liked boys. I'd be very surprised if a family didn't realise their kid/brother/sister was gay.

Only one of our friends had any issue with him being gay, the rest of us just got on with things as normal as nothing had changed for us, we already knew. It was good to be able to talk to him about it though, or more for him to be able to talk to us. By this time most of us were in relationships and it's been really interesting seeing his relationship with his boyfriend flourish over time as my relationship with my now wife has done.

I saw the whole thing as a sign that I'd found some pretty good friends. No judging, no awkwardness, no nothing. Good guys.

Oh, apart from the one who did have a problem. Funnily enough there was only one religious person amongst our group of friends too...

@VoodooV
worst...analogy...ever.

@bcglorf
how does your analysis of the situation in pakistan defend or excuse the execution of american citizens abroad?

@Yogi made the clear example of Anwar al-Awlaki,an innocent 16 yr old american citizen living with his respectable grand-parents,who was executed by a drone strike.

are you suggesting we should just trust the executive branches decisions to murder citizens because the political/religious situation in a certain country?

i am trying to understand your correlation between a political climate and abusive executive powers.

> "dividing large jurisdictions into many smaller jurisdictions would be a drain on commerce"

I don't think this is necessarily so. Both ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy prospered due to multiplicity of competing city-states. The more the competition between states, the more they will have to lower taxes and make the environment business-friendly. It creates a meritocracy as those states that fail to attract "clients," citizens and businesses will not survive. Small states make it very easy to do business with them, as in for example, Singapore, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Bahamas, etc. Small jurisdictions adapt their laws to make it easy to do business with them from abroad. Only big ones, like the US, make it a hassle to deal with from outside the country.

A free market society is as close to a meritocracy as you can get.

In a free market you can only really do well by providing goods and services that others want.

A common legal framework comes from commonality of culture, not from state control. And cultures adapt to each other for purposes of commerce.

Let commerce operate freely and people will find a way to adapt legal protections for successful and peaceful commerce. A small jurisdiction that "rips off" foreign business partners will find itself very quickly with no business partners and.being small, have a hard time surviving. Out of self preservation they will want to be trustworthy for others to want to do commerce with them.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

He still has time to insure that his swan-styley lecture circuit will consists of stops primarily abroad or insulated within the U.N as well
Piece a mottled work

However much I agree with the sentiment, the thing that annoys me about this kind of thing is how much it values American lives over Iraqis. Yes, there was a great cost to America for going to war, but there's no comparison to the cost paid by the home country.

I'd never wish invasion upon any nation, but can you imagine what life would be like if your home town was occupied by military force hostile to your government? I mean it. Think it through.

A war at home is very different to a war abroad.

sure,because our justice system has proven itself to be such a shining example of objective and fair treatment to those who defy the power of this government.

see:bradley manning

with the track record of this and previous administrations in regards to whistleblowers who expose our own governments corrupt and oftentimes illegal practices abroad.snowden played this card exactly how he should have...smart.

due process? gone.
habeas corpus?not anymore.

day in court? please.

critical thinking?
take your own advice.