Democrats are Anti-war?

1. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TMMasonposted 14 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin 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????????

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            crows?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               No we're opren.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
   3. 68

      IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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!!

         replyreport
2. 77

   Mighty Momposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
3. 77

   Mighty Momposted 14 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!!!???

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think you look like one...

      replyreport
   2. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
4. 77

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
5. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   I find this topic completely out of whack.
   
   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.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
6. 72

   Reality Bytesposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well Clinton had Somalia and the Balkans as well.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Wilson also had Haiti.
            
            Clinton did too.
            
            Haiti?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Mckinley (R) Spanish -American war

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Oh yeah?
            
            Well Madison invaded Canada, so there!

            replyreport
   2. 61

      wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin 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

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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"

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                  2. 72

                     Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Between different online accounts of the war and analysis, yes I tend to believe the content of it

                              replyreport
                        2. 72

                           Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                        3. 60

                           Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              wildorangeflowerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              I was able to read enough about history as I was a history teacher, World History and Ancient History. This is my interpretation of things according to my judgment, as you might have yours.
                              
                              I would like to tell you that I am open to all arguments, but not a deductive type of looking at things and understanding them.

                              replyreport
               2. 61

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin 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

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           And what would those reasons be?

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              Dave Barnettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Well, obviously, Dems conduct war so they can tax and spend, and the GOP conducts war cause they like big guns and lots of 'em, and because their daddy couldn't finish it the first time.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 It wasn't that obvious to me.
                                 
                                 Thats why I asked.

                                 replyreport
7. 65

   RKHenryposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport