|
09-06-2013, 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Del Rio, TN
38,216 posts, read 24,096,934 times
Reputation: 24214
|
|
|
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.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...s-on-syria.php |
|
09-06-2013, 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
3,537 posts, read 2,632,436 times
Reputation: 1034
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
I do not buy that about the Tea Party. At least the Tea Party we know of lead by Bachmann Santorum et al..
Gary Johnson's and Ralph Nader's followers are probably the comparison you are looking for.
Liberals and Libertarians. It is the Authoritarians that are the ones causing havoc in this nation.
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
8,091 posts, read 5,698,288 times
Reputation: 1578
|
|
|
because the mainstream Dems are hypocrites....period.
At least the old guard R's don't pretend.
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
25,450 posts, read 13,769,847 times
Reputation: 17149
|
|
|
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...
Last edited by saltine; 09-06-2013 at 10:27 AM..
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
79,851 posts, read 41,742,730 times
Reputation: 16992
|
|
Quote:
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 vilified and taught to hate eachother... edit: see 2nd post
|
They don't hate each other. The media dislikes both and create's the stories. The political establishment hates them both and create's stories. |
|
09-06-2013, 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
3,537 posts, read 2,632,436 times
Reputation: 1034
|
|
Quote:
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 to hate eachother... edit: see 2nd post
|
Depends on which tea party.
There is the grassroots then there is the one bought by Big Corporations.
The Grassroots tea partiers are rational and consistant and would gladly work with the rational wing of OWS. |
|
09-06-2013, 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Del Rio, TN
38,216 posts, read 24,096,934 times
Reputation: 24214
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
I do not buy that about the Tea Party. At least the Tea Party we know of lead by Bachmann Santorum et al..
Gary Johnson's and Ralph Nader's followers are probably the comparison you are looking for.
Liberals and Libertarians. It is the Authoritarians that are the ones causing havoc in this nation.
|
I haven't researched all the TEA party "faces", but the one that makes LWNJs screach like little girls (Palin) has stated opposition to attacks on Syria.
*******eta******
Did some digging. Since you mentioned Bachmann, in her words:
Quote:
“I am adamantly opposed to President Obama starting another war in the Middle
East and plan to vote against military intervention in Syria,” Bachmann said.
|
Oh, and Santorum as well:
Quote:
“There are no good outcomes here. An al Qaeda-run Syria is no better than an
Assad-Iran-Hezbollah-run Syria. What is happening there is tragic, but it is not
in the United States’ best interest to intervene with a military strike. I urge
my former colleagues in the House and Senate to defeat any measure calling for
the use of force in Syria.”
|
There are some people that have principles...too bad none are in the White House...or in leadership positions in either the D or R party. It's mostly the mainstream neo-cons like Obama, Pelosi, Finestine, McCain and a few others that support such indescriminate attacks.
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,830 posts, read 19,679,353 times
Reputation: 14794
|
|
Quote:
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 |
I honestly have no idea. I am as perplexed as you are by this rush to yet another quagmire.
I just hope that the sanity exhibited on the "edges" reigns supreme.
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
14,295 posts, read 9,312,823 times
Reputation: 4253
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
Obama and other Western world leaders have some agenda that we are not privy to.
The neocons think the US should be the world's police force, and many partisan dems are just going to agree with a Democratic president on everything.
The peaceniks never want to go to war, ever. Even if bombs are landing from New York to Los Angeles, the peaceniks would still be against any military response.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are only in favor of a military response if another nation or terrorist group is threatening our nation's national security, threatening the lives of our fellow Americans or threatening our allies. There was none of this taking place with Libya, and none with Syria.
|
|
09-06-2013, 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 4,960,491 times
Reputation: 4221
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
I do not buy that about the Tea Party. At least the Tea Party we know of lead by Bachmann Santorum et al..
Gary Johnson's and Ralph Nader's followers are probably the comparison you are looking for.
Liberals and Libertarians. It is the Authoritarians that are the ones causing havoc in this nation.
|
Bachmann is NOT the leader of the tea party movement. She is the self-appointed spokesperson for their members who got elected to Congress. |
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.
|
|
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.
