dems should make cons agree not to cut healthcare funding...

The Democrats should make the cons agree to not cut healthcare funding, and make them stop the sequester, and agree to not shut down the government. If the cons want this war with Syria, that's the price they have to pay, plus raise taxes on the rich to pay for the war, because it's going to be another $3 trillion before it's over. Betcha.

 

Did I miss something? I thought at least half of the republican party- the isolationist side- didn't want this war?
And I thought Obama and Kerry etc... asking congress to approve are democrats?

Nope, don't think the dems are gonna get things for an agreement to go into Syria, considering it's the dems. asking for it.

 

There you go, trying to use logic and facts in a RJ thread. Ain't no one got time for that.

 

lol

 

Which would bankrupt The US more quickly, Public healthcare or War?

 

I can't believe you really have missed that much. Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been beating the war drum for Syria for two years. In the hearings yesterday, other cons were demanding to know why it's taken Obama this long to answer the republican cries for war. It's always been the republicans that want more money for military spending, and you can't get more spending without more war to use up the bullets and bombs. Rand Paul is the only isolationist in the GOP. All the protesters are liberals, not cons.
So are you laughing at that moron poster, or laughing with his moron post?...which would make you ...well everyone else knows, that isn't one.

 

Another conservative hawk banging the war drum!

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/320183-howard-dean-backs-syria-strike

 

Our enemies are destroying each other. Pass the popcorn. Watch barry screw this one up too.

 

Good ol barry has no common sense, No knowledge on how to run a country let alone juggle three wars. Just another distraction from all his fuck ups so far.

Funny thing, He told J Mc to fuck off two years ago, Then he calls him personally on 'how to go about this'.

It will also be funny when they find the WMD's that were in Iraq and went north over the line we could not cross when the war started. Disappeared from one country and they call foul, But a few miles up they were using them.

The dem's are now the 'warmongers'. Watching barry get kicked around like a bitch is funny as hell and im glad he will go down as the worst in the white house, All on his own. There is still Kenya to go back home to.

 

Republicans are so infantile. Acting like immature children, refusing to behave if they do not get their way.

 

Note the yogi cartoon character, calling the dems war mongers, when it's been McCain and Graham whining for war with Syria for over two years. No shortage of moron cons on this thread.

 

Yep, Two years they told barry where the WMD's were and that they were using chemicals. Could have saved a lot of lives if he would not have told Johnny mac to fuck off. He was too busy droning and killing others.

More ironic, Who was the first that got a call? Johnny mac. He knew what was/is going on but now limited options as barry drug his feet and let innocent people die.

Nothing good can come of it now, But it will be a 'Con' to fix it and IMO now its damage control.

 

Just...laughing.

Yeah, I know Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been gunning for this war. I mean, McCain is just a huge hawk and I understand all that.
And yeah, I may have missed some of the back and forth two party bickering about stuff lately... because honestly, this talk of Syria on the 3 major networks has been getting very old and tiring very fast to me. In any case, from what I have understood though, from the limited amount I allow myself to listen to the back and forth two party gridlock and craziness is that the republican side is split between two groups- basically the establishment/McCain side and the isolationist/Rand Paul side...
From what I gathered (okay, for example- I believe it was CNN, although it could have been MSNBC that said this... thinking CNN though), -- I've heard discussions on, we'll say CNN, that "how much of a PROBLEM is the isolationist...heading towards libertarian side of the GOP (okay, maybe it was msnbc? err, whatever... not that it matters, lol.)--- for the issue of intervention in Syria, amongst other things..."---
So, basically if one of the other networks (not faux), is talking about the isolationist side of the GOP becoming a (huge?) problem for the GOP... I assumed from those statements that the isolationist side of the GOP is gaining traction and influence.... (other things I heard on one of those two major networks is that come election time(s) it will be interesting to see which of the two major, fractured, sides of the GOP will win for which side will have candidates chosen from- and in general, in which direction will the GOP go....)

In any case, YES!!- I know that typically the GOP is WAY more hawk-ish than the democrats. Def. not saying that isn't the case... I mean, everybody remembers Cheney.

But, with THIS situation in Syria... not with the way the two parties have historically been... I was under the impression that- first of all, most Americans (average Americans, not politicians- from both parties as well as indies) are NOT for intervention in Syria....

And that yes, some members of the GOP, such as Graham and McCain (et al) are for intervention and more of it and why didn't Obama act faster (btw, I do agree Obama should be done SOMETHING earlier back when there was a chance to help solve the chaos over in Syria... back when many of the rebels were just average, decent people... before they became-well, not to be trusted... call them whatever you want to call them, but many or most of them now are extremists...)- back then... there could have possibly been a cease-fire or some other less bad (for lack of a better term), solution and now things have gone too far and this is a civil war that... basically has no good side and we should not be involved in... but back to my original point, I was under the impression that yes, there are the McCain's and Graham's blowing their war horns for this....
But then there are also democrats (Kerry, Obama, etc) blowing THEIR war horns for this...
And then there is...everyone else (read- not those people mentioned plus their followers) on both sides and every "side" in between that....don't. want. this.

Basically, I was under the impression that other then certain people and their followers that I/we have mentioned (those that speak the loudest...), that this situation in Syria and people's views on it, were not as much of a party issue as past wars/interventions....

Are you saying that I am wrong here??

 

And btw... what are you trying to call me?

I mean.. I have no clue, so just come out and say it?

But I'd be careful.
I am about as far from a republican as can be. I support gay marriage, a women's right to chose... I have been against every war that has happened in my lifetime... I am for full legalization of EVERY drug, etc.

I just tend to think, if people could behave or self regulate (in actuality, it would have to be group regulation- but on a very small, local scale), that I lean more towards the anarchist "side"... however, that is another topic and neither here nor there.

My point is----WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO CALL ME?- because I have always been respectful to you (I am never one of the people who dislikes your posts, just so you know) and have no ill will towards you even though I think that BOTH sides (dems/pugs...there, like my cutesy word?) are being used by the same establishment for the same purpose (keep them fighting amongst themselves while the real work gets done unbeknownst to the sheep thinking they are arguing about anything important...)--- so anyways, I'd think twice about whatever you are trying to call me, because I'm pretty sure you couldn't be more wrong.

But- again- please clarify.

 

Oh, yes, another one.

(like I said before, I thought this was more a non-partisan thing... meaning, some people from each side of the political spectrum for and some people against...)

 

AT
I agree it was not a 'party' problem until 'war' was thrown on the table. Now you have to work with each other regardless. Then, When all said and done, The trickle down 'blame game' starts.

I still want answers for why two navy seals were killed and swept under the rug, But I guess there is more 'pressing' issues to stick our nose in and more people to kill.

 

Well, I meant that it didn't seem to me to be as much a "party problem" as many wars or interventions in the past because this time, in this situation, there seems to be many on both sides that both do and don't want this.

Oh and btw, in your previous post when you mentioned the drones... that is a good point and something I should have mentioned, somehow, in my previous postings too....

To say that the democratic party, in recent years, has not been rather hawk-ish is to ignore just how many people- including so many innocent civilians have been killed by Obama's massive drone problem. (anyone know the current stats on that, btw??).... I mean, Obama's drone wars in one of THE main reasons I stopped supporting Obama (yes, I did vote for him...yes, I used to support him), but to see the way Obama has behaved with the drones for one (just take a look at Yemen, for example, to see how much this program has become a problem for the U.S., and the western world in general... by creating AQAP and by helping to give the average people (read-not AQAP members) support for them.... that whole thing (drones) is not just immoral but is going to backfire in a huge way.... (and in addition to the drones, I mean, just take a look at the way Obama has come down on medical marijuana facilities... not closed GITMO, etc.
Obama has failed on his campaign promises and is a huge disappointment.

 

He has shown that two can and will before the shit crust cracks, Turn into ONE big American machine. You sound like you believed in a change of sorts, Did you're best to get him there and he flat out turned around and said haha fuckers and off he went.

We can take care of our own. They say the little man has no opinion, Have a panel of the little man for the opinion of them. Same goes for the people who buy their way in, Limit them and their opinion.

We could sell our own oil, Drilled by our guys and sold by our guys. Legalize marijuana and reap all the tax $$ from it to pay off china that owns 40% of us.

There are too many ways to 'fix' the problem. Hell it could be done in a year if certain things were regulated and sold to the general public. But they still rely on an outdated system that has us in the trillions.

If I had one trillion, Give ONE million away to many people. Random people who need it, Or to people who save a person or animal. I could live my days out with a million cash and I smoke two packs a day, I can 'burn' it that way, Sharing a small amount is not gonna hurt.

I am GOP/Con, But a woman can make her own choices, I live in Iowa, Mecca for homosexual marriage and no problems, I have the right to bear arms no matter if it is a full auto weapon, Im all for small business, Nothing wrong with paying a 'tax', But a flat tax, No matter what you make. People should not have to pick up the slack for others, We are Americans, Not americant's and education can be had for anyone and or a better job.

But everyone has their own ideas of what will work, But it obviously clear what we have does not. To each their own though

 

Question, if Romney was POTUS, how many republicans would be against attacking Syria if he asked permission from congress? Does anyone really believe Rand Paul would object?

 

^ Very lame justification for the risk of American lives. If that pathetic arguement is your best , go back to barry's cheerleader camp.