It's so telling: Republicans now act dovish but trashed Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 for being dovish. (McCain, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see where being either for or against taking action in Syria constitutes 'working together to destroy us.'
Reasonable people ought to be able to see both sides of the debate when it comes to Syria. It's very simple. On one hand we've Muslims killing Muslims in Syria; why would we intervene to stop them? Both sides hate us, so why help either? On the other hand we've got one party who has done something egregious by indiscriminately killing, including women & children, using chem weapons. If we don't exact a penalty for that, it is much more likely to be repeated in the future.
How does taking one side or the other in that debate constitute working to destroy us?
I agree, BOTH parties suck. RINOS like McCain, Boehner and Graham make me sick. Those of us who supported Ron Paul in 2012 are opposed to intervention in Syria. Every Democrat supporting an attack on Syria is a hypocrite. Whatever Israel tells the U.S. it wants is what the U.S. will do, whether we can afford it or not.
I don't see where being either for or against taking action in Syria constitutes 'working together to destroy us.'
Because both sides NEED another war. Can't you see that?
They need another war to keep the American public scared, another boogeyman if you will. They need us to be scared so they can justify their police state/spy apparatus; they know people will willingly give up their liberty in order to be "safe."
Quote:
Reasonable people ought to be able to see both sides of the debate when it comes to Syria. It's very simple. On one hand we've Muslims killing Muslims in Syria; why would we intervene to stop them? Both sides hate us, so why help either? On the other hand we've got one party who has done something egregious by indiscriminately killing, including women & children, using chem weapons. If we don't exact a penalty for that, it is much more likely to be repeated in the future.
There is no debate; we CAN'T AFFORD IT. We're $17 trillion in debt, with over $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Schools are failing, roads and bridges are crumbling, American kids go to bed hungry--yet we always have money for another war!!!
I don't think they are trying to destroy us, overtly. They are working in their best interest. The interests of the elite and 'normal' Americans overlap. Just slightly, though.
If Romney or McCain was president, we'd have already invaded Syria with boots on the ground, and a good chunk of the r's here would be calling anyone with concerns un-American.
If Romney or McCain was president, we'd have already invaded Syria with boots on the ground, and a good chunk of the r's here would be calling anyone with concerns unAmerican.
And obama is pleading congress to. They all seem quite bloodthirsty.
It's simple really. As long as it's their team doing it, they see no harm. D's were bashing Bush every chance over war. Now R's are bashing Obama every chance they get. I predict the next R or D who wants to start a war, the opposing R or D will be 100% against it. One very ironic thing to note though; there will ALWAYS be a war started by R or D. Always...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.