jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (50 posts)

Democrats are Anti-war?

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Hey all,

    I always hear people saying "the republicans are evil! Democrats are the heavenly angels who will save us from poverty!!", and then the common retort is "Bah! Democrats spend all our money and take away our freedoms!! The true, unsung heroes - the Republicans - will ACTUALLY be the ones to save us all!!"

    And then the Demeecrats always respond with "W started the war!!" to which anyone with a brain will point out "But Obama nor the Democrat Congress is ending the war!!"

    ... So I wanted to simply point to this article for everyone

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne … -afpak-war

    IT shows that a republican (who's more libertarian than anything else) and a democrat (who actually thinks for himself) got together and tried to end the war...

    .... And it was shot down by such a huge margin - 38-372 (almost a margin of 1 to 10).

    NEITHER OF THE PARTIES WANTS TO END THIS WAR. QUIT ACTING LIKE ONE PARTY IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have been telling you all... there is no two parties anymore. There is the Progressive party... and those that used to be Dems or Repubs.

      They, the progressives, have infected and taken over both parties. They all point their fingers at one another and bl;ame the dems or repubs, when they are all Progressives and have destroyed our country.

      It is actually a great plan.

      They control both side of the isle, both parties, so they can point their fingers and blame the other guys,(as if there is another guy), and cry about them,... getting the American people so tied up in blaming the Dems or Repubs, that they never bother to look at the real culprits.... the PROGRESSIVES.

      But, we see you know... at least alot us do, and more are waking up everyday.

      Progressives must go!

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It would be a hard slog TM.  Right now 50% of households don't pay taxes.  That high number is due to so many being unemployed.  But even if we were back to full employment, I would say a good 35% don't pay taxes.  Too many of us like to get a free handout.  We have to scale back on a lot of government benefits.  It's unlikely that people will elect voters who want to reduce benefits. It's always about getting more and making the other guy pay for it.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Anybody who works pays the payroll tax, which is more than the federal and state combined.
          Poor don't pay federal and state, but pay payroll.
          Middle pay federal state and payroll.
          $120,000 and up pay federal and state but are exempt from payroll.


          Who does not pay taxes? Who are you talking about????????

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And those same poor are entitled to an earned income credit that pays them back a hell of a lot more than they payed in.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      You always hear that huh?  You run with a strange crowd.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yeah. I believe the crows is called "people on hubpages"

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          crows?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No we're opren.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            rofl, my bad - "crowd"

            .. almost typed crows again. Ring finger is used for w and s, guess I'll have to work on that.

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a Democrat, and I've never heard of your ramblings until now.  So what does that mean???

      I'll tell you what that means, not all of us Democrats are guilty of this perception.  Your rant is nothing more than a perception.  You do realize that?

      They only real thing that has a sound basis here, is discovered by asking you if YOU feel better?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        your perception is nothing but a perception, and thus ... wait, this is a perception... so is everything in my life!! MY HANDS ARE PERCEPTIONS!!!

        OH MY GOD!!! NOTHING MATTERS!!! IT'S ALL A PERCEPTION OF A REALITY - I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT!!!"


        ... your argument... isn't good.

        psst... you probably didn't read my full post!! I was insulting repulicans, too!!

  2. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Wouldn't it be nice if our government were a comic book?
    The good guys and the bad guys would be clearly delineated.
    The bad guys would be labeled "villains."
    The president and congress would be caped superheroes who really could "bam, pow,zap" through problems, because problems would be one-dimensional and easy to fight. Wars could be declared and undeclared with a stroke of the pen -- bim, bam, done.
    Jobs would appear magically and pay decent wages and include health coverage, so universal health care would be unnecessary.

    It's a nice fantasy!

    I personally have never heard anyone refer to Democrats as angels who will "save us from poverty!" Try to level the playing field between the haves and the have nots, yes. "Save us" (who is this "us" anyway?) from poverty, no.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed.

      I personally vote, and support, whoever I think will best serve my interests and the interests of the nation.  Usually that means I vote democratic but sometimes I support Republicans.  John Duncan, a Repub. here in TN, was one of the few people to vote against the Iraq war resolution.  He is a true conservative, and I like him quite a bit. 

      Politics is not black and white, one party this or that.

      Same thing with Obama - I supported him, voted for him, and I still support him.  Why?  Because I believe in his ideas.  Do I think he's god?  Of course not.  Do I support everything he's done?  Of course not.  Will I vote for him again?  Yes, especially if the Republicans offer us another Sarah Palin as the alternative. 

      We need to stop trying to turn everything into good and evil, and actually think about the issues. 

      But then again, I'm one of those evil progressives, so why would you listen to anything I say?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    William,
    By the new definitions (made by TMM) it appears that MOST of us here on the Forum are "progressives." And thus "evil."
    I'm just getting used to being called an "evil liberal" and a "leant leftist" and now this new label.

    I agree with you -- I, too, vote for who I think will be the best for the job at hand. I voted for Arnold here in CA.
    It's not really his fault the state is ungovernable.

    When you say "if the Republicans offer us another Sarah Palin..." Please don't tell me there's more than one!!!???big_smile

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think you look like one... wink

    2. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Just give in to the dark side, MM.  I did.  I fully admit my desire to create a worldwide gay agnostic communist dictatorship.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Why Misha, how kind of you to notice!
    I have been out practicing my moose hunting!
    Do you like my new glasses?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Its not a bad thing if you look like Sarah Palin.

      Now if he had said Hillary Clinton or god forgive Nancy Pelosi I could understand any anger you might feel.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just be careful next time the Republican Party offers to buy you some new clothes...  and try to memorize the names of some national news publications.  You don't have to actually read them, just be able to pretend that you do.

    3. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They are terrific - except I can't recognize them on your pic wink

  5. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    I find this topic completely out of whack. lol

    No politicians are not "Anti" War. They all encourage separation, based on the ideology that America is the leaders of the world(for whatever reason).

    None of them work to prevent Wars. Their actions prove it.

    It's a majority of citizens who are ANTI War. smile

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly - because it is the citizens who have to go and die.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    Wilson (D) World War I

    Roosevlt (D)  World War II

    Truman (D) Korean Conflict

    Johnson (D)  Vietnam

    Bush (R) Current Wars

    yeah them democrats do despise their wars.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just to be fair.

      Reagan had Grenada and Bush #1 had the Gulf war.

      From the start of hostilities in the Gulf war to the end.

      Both conflicts lasted less than 2 months.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image94
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well Clinton had Somalia and the Balkans as well.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wilson also had Haiti.

          Clinton did too.

          Haiti?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image94
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Mckinley (R) Spanish -American war

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think the Dems are way ahead in the "lets war" category.

              Can't forget poor Lincoln having to save the Union against traitorous democrats in the South.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yeah?

          Well Madison invaded Canada, so there!

    2. wildorangeflower profile image56
      wildorangeflowerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      For both the WWs the US need to join the war, it is inevitable, it is just an opportune time that it was during their times that wars could have erupted, even the Vietnam War -- afraid that the Commies will take over

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        we didn't need to do anything. FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing. the prez's job is to protect citizens from foreign invasions, and he couldn't even do that!

        both "world" wars were one long european civil war with a short sabbatical in between. The US didn't need to be involved.

        1. wildorangeflower profile image56
          wildorangeflowerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Germany declared war on us because we were supporting the Allied through arms plus, they supported Japan after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
          Japan has a grudge on US because of the US friendship with China, FDR cant declare war because there is no sufficient evidence but once it happened they joined the war and supported the Philippines and gained control of the Pacific. I know this part because my grandfather is a guerilla during that time and he fought alongside American troops against the Japs

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Japan attacked the US because FDR was unconstitutionally starving their oil supply. FDR wanted war, and we would've declared war. FDR knew pearl harbor was coming and failed to act.

            Check out "Pearl Harbor: the seeds and fruits of infamy"

            1. wildorangeflower profile image56
              wildorangeflowerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for the information, but I prefer to base my judgment after reading Encyclopedia Britannica.

              1. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thinking for yourself and connecting the dots is actually quite refreshing. Try it for a change, you might like it wink

              2. Reality Bytes profile image94
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                So you will just accept any story you are told?   Oh My!

                1. wildorangeflower profile image56
                  wildorangeflowerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  My judgment is based on what I read and I analyzed. Britannica for me is the best unbiased account.
                  History could be written in what is good for certain people, it can be reinvented, retold rehashed and everything imaginable.

                  1. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Surely it is unbiased, especially where it covers the wars Britain took part in lol

                  2. Reality Bytes profile image94
                    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What a coincidence? 

                    After WWI the NWO tried to set up the League of Nations.


                    After WWII the NWO successfully implemented the United Nations.


                    Coincidence?

                    Problem+Reaction=Solution

                    Create a war

                    Bring the human population to complete fear of war

                    Try to set up a global governance.  So that peope will not have to fear war!

                    There is more to history then they will put into an encyclopedia.

                  3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    that's funny that your "judgment is based on what I read and I analyzed. " but you refuse to read things that you might disagree with.

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/021308/conspiracy-chart-2008.gif

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                i didn't mention anything about conspiracies, but thanks for being a jerk!

                It's pretty much well documented that FDR let pearl harbor happen.

                1. Dave Barnett profile image61
                  Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  As far as dems being anti-war, they are actually a mixed bag. Most of our wars were while a dem was in office FDR WW2, JFK  and Johnson Viet Nam and others. Dems are pro war for different reasons than GOP

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And what would those reasons be?

  7. RKHenry profile image78
    RKHenryposted 6 years ago

    The first post is such hogwash.  Hogwash I tell you, hogwash.  Typical Republican move.

 
working