"TEA Party" and "Progressives" both oppose attacking Syria? (Congressmen, enemy)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

You defeat evil by having breakfast with your kids? Thats interesting.

Partisan politicians from both sides "evolve" their opinion based on how they are told to vote.

It must suck to live in a world where you believe that people simply couldn't have a legitimate belief that is counter of yours.

It has to be pretty frustrating.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

True. Too many Americans have tied their own hands with partisan politics and they cannot choose to support or oppose anything based on their own judgment.

It turns out the anti-war liberals are being more honest with this issue, because they oppose it because they have always opposed war. The anti-Obama Republicans however have NEVER before been heard opposing the use of force, but now they do, and they come across horribly dishonest. Rand Paul and few other Republicans are being honest because they have spoken against military interventions in the past. Pelosi is an example of a dishonest Dem, because she supports it now, after having opposed similar action in the past.

The "original" Tea Party Republicans, such as Rand Paul, have always been against foreign intervention, unless responding to a specific threat or attack on Americans or our interests. Syria is clearly no such thing. "Neo-Cons" (both R and D) believe much more in forcing American beliefs and values on other countries, rather they want them or not. All at the expense of the lives of American servicemen and taxpayer dollars. McCain and some others are playing to form. Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein...and yes, Obama, are showing what hypocrites they are, after years of attacking the "illegal war in Iraq", yet supporting war in Libya and Syria.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I don't see what race has to do with it. Syrians are white, and TP is mostly white. The problem is that doing nothing will kill way more people than doing something. The TP position is one of indifference, because they are saying it is none of our business, which means they don't care how many people die, or do not die. That is why it is a tough call. Can we allow evil to continue even when we are in position to stop it? Many say it is none of our business, but historically US has tried to help.

What does supporting one bunch of evil thugs over another bunch of evil thugs accomplish? Well, other than killing people and spending the taxpayer's money.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

That's what I said

Well, we have CIA on the ground helping the moderate rebels, and we have US military in Jordan training commandos in case they need to get involved in opposing radical elements. Hopefully with those efforts the moderate rebels will take control and establish new government. I think your comments place you on the Iranian and Russian side of the conflict, but I think you'd probably want to be neutral.

Those things worked out real well with Iran and Iraq way back when, didn't they? Viet Nam as well, come to think of it.

Is it impossible for our leadership to ever learn from past mistakes?

[Colorado Rambler]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

It seems as if the primary support for attacks on Syria are coming from only a couple places...the "old school", neo-con wing of the Republican party, and the staunch Dems who will support a Democratic president no matter what. While both libertarian-oriented, "small government" Rs and the some of the more "progressive" wing of the D party oppose it. Makes sense for the TEA Party, there is no justification for spending US dollars and lives there, let alone for pushing for expansion for US military actions overseas. Progressives seem split between handwringers over "chemical weapons" and those who always oppose military action.

OK...so can someone explain just WHY many "mainstream" Dems as well as neo-con Rs are pushing for yet another war? One that in no way benefits US interests. One that costs US taxpayers money, and risks the lives of our servicemen. And one that can expect nearly universal foreign condemnation.

House Progressives And Tea Party Could Unite To Oppose Syria Resolution | TPMDC

Strawman Alert!!!

Maybe we actually have a fiendish, double crossing, duplicitous secret agenda which will only end when Syria gases the entire Tea Party Pour me another one crowd.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by saltine

because thay are nearly one in the same.. I've also always thought tea party types and ows types have more in common but they have been villified and taught(told) that they hate eachother...

They have nothing in common. The TEA Party is against tax and spend politics. The OWS wants to remove the wealth from the wealthy and spread it amongst themselves, via the government.

They are polar opposites!

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Those things worked out real well with Iran and Iraq way back when, didn't they? Viet Nam as well, come to think of it.

Is it impossible for our leadership to ever learn from past mistakes?

They've never made a mistake. They just appear to be one thing, while always making bung loads of cash for their corporate handlers. Viet Nam was a windfall for companies like Raymond International, Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, and J.A. Jones Construction, made billions from their no-contract "Build Viet Nam" projects. At the height of the scam these companies employed nearly 100,000 people. Johnson "I can't stop this war because my friends are making too much damn money"

They learn from their mistakes, however they NEVER make any.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It must suck to live in a world where you believe that people simply couldn't have a legitimate belief that is counter of yours.

It has to be pretty frustrating.

Not at all since your assesment is wrong once again.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

The "original" Tea Party Republicans, such as Rand Paul, have always been against foreign intervention, unless responding to a specific threat or attack on Americans or our interests. Syria is clearly no such thing. "Neo-Cons" (both R and D) believe much more in forcing American beliefs and values on other countries, rather they want them or not. All at the expense of the lives of American servicemen and taxpayer dollars. McCain and some others are playing to form. Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein...and yes, Obama, are showing what hypocrites they are, after years of attacking the "illegal war in Iraq", yet supporting war in Libya and Syria.

Sure. Here are my words in the post you replied to "Rand Paul and few other Republicans are being honest because they have spoken against military interventions in the past. Pelosi is an example of a dishonest Dem, because she supports it now, after having opposed similar action in the past.".

I respect people sticking to their principles, no matter what those principles may be. McCain is doing that too (arguing the other side), but too many from both sides are not.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

What does supporting one bunch of evil thugs over another bunch of evil thugs accomplish? Well, other than killing people and spending the taxpayer's money.

If it helps end the war, it will accoplish a lot. Wouldn't you agree?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by steven_h

They have nothing in common. The TEA Party is against tax and spend politics. The OWS wants to remove the wealth from the wealthy and spread it amongst themselves, via the government.

They are polar opposites!

Both were against the bail outs.