Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

the democratic congress is worse than the republican congress


angelofdeath
 Share

Recommended Posts

is that possible?

 

from ron paul:

 

"For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

the democrats are confused

 

republicans promote the image that "staying the course" will work, but deep down they are unsure of the endgame scenario themselves.

 

bush's little 30,000 troop surge of "slow escalation" won't work. it amazes me that bush is making the same mistakes that were made in vietnam, and not learning. in vietnam, instead of the u.s. crushing the enemy with the full force of its armed forces, the u.s. instead did the "slow escalation" of troops and bombing runs little by little so to not "anger" the american public and the rest of the world. don't fight a war if you're not going to go all-out. rumsfeld should have used a large force from the very beginning in march 2007 (a minimum of 200,000 troops). at this point it may be too late -- and doing a large increase now would probably greatly anger the american public to levels not seen since the vietnam era.

 

another reason 30,000 troops is misleading to the general public -- most of these 30,000 will not be on the "front lines" capturing or killing insurgents, terrorists, and sunni-shiite clashers/instigators. most of the contingent of these brigades and battallions are support -- they sit in the background pressing buttons and filing paper work and moving supplies. probably about 10% of that 30,000 force will actually be dealing with the bloodshed firsthand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FUCKIN BULLSHIT BECAUSE THEY MUST FUND THE WAR ITS ALREADY GOING ..SECONDLY THEY CANT WITHDRAWL BECAUSE BUSH HAS THREATENED TO VETO ANY LEGISLATION THAT PROPOSES WITHDRAWL EVEN IN PHASES....IT ALL COMES DOWN TO HOW GOOD CAN CONGRESS BE WHEN THE ARE WORKING UNDER A DICTATOR LIKE BUSH...HE NEEDS TO REALIZE HE IS PRESIDENT NOT KING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"THEY MUST FUND THE WAR ITS ALREADY GOING"

 

hmmm... seems to me if you de-fund a war, it will cease pretty quick. i point to vietnam.

congress has the authority as it stands right now to stop the war. there isnt even an official declaration of war. but everyone in congress except kuchinich and paul dont want to talk about that. congress actually holds more power than bush. they can hold him accountable, they are just a bunch of a pussies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... seems to me if you de-fund a war, it will cease pretty quick. i point to vietnam.

 

Yeah it was over for us... but how did that work out for Vietnam and Cambodia when our govt defunded Lon Nol and South Vietnam? Do false pretenses for the invasion justify letting the Iraqis clean up our mess through genocide? But people will still argue that the violence is only because of the US presence (while also being a civil war) and everyone will hold hands when the infidels leave as opposed to the death squads operating completely uninhibited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that possible?

 

from ron paul:

 

"For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans."

 

 

This is so vague it doesn't even begin to support your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what they are doing - The US populations consensus is pretty much that they want out of the war, not that they want out at any cost (though some do feel that way). It seems reasonable to keep the debate alive by keeping Iraq in Bills and the news for the rest of the time Bush is in office, but not just jumping out next week. Not only is it advantageous to Democratic election strategy, but it also keeps the voice of criticism alive (in this case the voice being the majority of Americans) and drowning out the Bush spin machine.

 

Seems like a pretty reasonable/logical thing to me.

 

I do wish we had a parliamentarian government though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to edit my thought but it would be more honest just to add: I think the war is a scam and Bush probably a criminal for lying to create the war. I do wish the Democrats would pull all the troops now, but it couldn't happen. Many Democrats still come from more center left if not right areas and could never support radical action such as that. What we have in congress is the result of a fucked up population which a taste for war, with many of the current detractors among the population 3 years ago supporting it. They now want us out because they don't care about Arabs and they're sick of it - not because they care about peace or what got us over there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think of the world opinion though, its like going into someones house shitting all over and then leaving without cleaning up...we clearly cant just abandon the iraq situation and that is why we cant abruptly withdrawl im saying this and im antiwar

 

you cant be anti war and want to continue an undeclared war. it is just plain hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what they are doing - The US populations consensus is pretty much that they want out of the war, not that they want out at any cost (though some do feel that way). It seems reasonable to keep the debate alive by keeping Iraq in Bills and the news for the rest of the time Bush is in office, but not just jumping out next week. Not only is it advantageous to Democratic election strategy, but it also keeps the voice of criticism alive (in this case the voice being the majority of Americans) and drowning out the Bush spin machine.

 

Seems like a pretty reasonable/logical thing to me.

 

I do wish we had a parliamentarian government though.

 

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its cool dude, i dont expect you to grasp anything over a 3rd grade comprehension level.

 

 

Just like I expect you to respond like a third grader with insults, name-calling, and stereotyping. Instead you just say "the democrats are bad because they are spending money", but you don't say on what, and you don't say how much compared to the Republican congress over the last 14 years. Instead you make a bullshit thread with the sole intention of pissing people off and you failed even in that, because everyone has just come to except your consistent ability to act like a third grader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

 

If you view the republicans as Nazis you should do less to detract from their opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha, the democrats are not any kind of opposition. i guess you havent noticed the left/right big government/police state dynamic over the past, oh, 80 years.

 

how can the dems be any opposition when they fund a war they are 'against?' how can i like the democrats when.... what is their complaint about bush? he lied us into war? he isnt spending enough money on domestic programs? even though he has outspent even the great LBJ? he should have the army in darfur instead of iraq?

they support bush's open border agenda, support a north american union, support the UN, they want entangling alliances with way to many countries, they want an absurd and insane war on drugs continued and during clinton expanded it, they claim to support civil liberty when in fact were passing 'domestic terrorist' laws in the 90's that were one step below the bush backed patriot act.

 

why would i support a party that supports a war they say they are against? i seem to recall clinton lying about kosovo the same way ghwb lied about panama. see a pattern here? there is not a dimes worth of difference between these parties. to support one is to support the other. the dems want a caring, compassionate state, the republicans want a state that unleashes justice and democracy on the world, but this cannot be. wishing for a state that only does good things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles or an elephant that only takes tiny soft steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So by your logic, then, voting for the removal of troops from a warzone constitutes a pro-war agenda? You really are warped."

 

yeah, this resolution really got far. i know i know, they couldnt pass the resolution so now they must FUND it. i mean, its only right. cant get your way, give in and 'join the other side.'

great people these ideologically solid democrats are.

 

word...why we fight is pretty decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone was celebrating the passage of the Iraq spending bill on Friday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Truthdig it’s “a disaster for the American people.” The presidential candidate went on to explain his dissatisfaction with his party: “It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq— that we didn’t have any alternatives.”

 

kucinich blasts dems.mp3 (12min)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it just shows the democrats up as a bunch of wimps. they talk a good game, but in the end are no better than the republicans. being against a war, but voting to support it and keep it going to keep criticism to a minimum, and to just do your job... is sort of like if you were part of hitlers government. if you were 'against' hitler but you were 'just doing your job.'

 

it is high time politicians stopped worrying about 'getting elected' or 'reelected' and started doing what was right.

 

preach on brougham. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...