Democrats. The party of war?

Also found this interesting:

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, July 8th, 2010 4:30pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I think that's oversimplifying it a little bit.

This war was begun by Bush. I'm not crazy about Obama's actions since taking office, but let's not forget why Americans were there in the first place.

But Ron Paul is right about this being a war of choice.>> ^blankfist:

Democrats. The party of war?

@Throbbin, the war is expanding under Obama, and he's committing a significant number of troops to Afghanistan. He's also threatening sanctions to be placed on Iran, which is effectively an act of war.

If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back. But you know, as well as I do, when they self-proclaim the Democratic Party as the "party of peace" they're creating a disingenuous slogan they use only when the Republicans are in office.

The Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical in foreign policy. They're both the party of war.

Republicans simply cannot shake their hypocrisy. Even you were somehow able to believe that this was all Obama's doing. We were all supposed to believe the war was good when we were under Bush. Now that we're under Obama, it's bad? WTF?

Personally, I'd say it's a war of ignorance, but ignorance is also a choice too so it works both ways

And for the nth time, it's not a war. Only congress can declare war. We WISH it would be a war because if it was official, it would have been over years ago.

This video is awesome. It highlights so many reason why I dislike him and his utterly shit political philosophy. (and why I kick myself to this day for giving him money and a primary vote during his run for POTUS)


• "We're going to win in November"
We = GOP. Ron Paul wants the GOP to win big in November. Seriously? Say what you want about Libertarianism, but Republicans are the farthest thing I can think of from the tenets of Libertarianism.

• "We just fired our general"
Damn straight! Biggest redneck, never-ending-war dickhead in the military. Ask Pat Tilman's mother about that one.

• "I lived through it (Viet Nam)."
He was stationed at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

• Oil spill & Tar Balls
What a fucking crock of shit. He's downplaying the effects of the BP/DWH oil spill? What a fucking cuntface heap of shit.

• Rand Paul "needs to be a senator". Yeah, like I need a bout of bone cancer.

• "You're putting words out there". Uh, no, Ron. Your son put those words out there, then like a true asshole, did exactly the opposite.

>> ^VoodooV:

Republicans simply cannot shake their hypocrisy. Even you were somehow able to believe that this was all Obama's doing. We were all supposed to believe the war was good when we were under Bush. Now that we're under Obama, it's bad? WTF?
Personally, I'd say it's a war of ignorance, but ignorance is also a choice too so it works both ways
And for the nth time, it's not a war. Only congress can declare war. We WISH it would be a war because if it was official, it would have been over years ago.


This isn't entirely actuate of the situation. As you can see if you watched the video, most rank and file republicans still support the war. Steele seems to be a recent convert on the anti-war kick, but Ron Paul has never really supported war or police actions at large.

For anyone who has played civilization, we know that democracy suffers from war weariness (unless you build enough police stations which is kind of scary now that I consider it!). A good war turns into a bad war fast in the public eye if people don't agree with it. The fact that Obama had decided not to end it, but rather escilate it does make it his war now. It is the difference between folding and paying to see the flop, he didn't even have to small blind on this one, he said he was a war candidate from day one about ganastan.

As far as it being a war or not, it doesn't really matter what you call it, we are shipping them bombs, and not via federal express. Congress is funding it, not forcing his hand. It is a de facto war regardless of what you want to call it. Perhaps the fact that it isn't even a war makes it worse, not better anyway. It means the president can bomb countries and not even have to ask congress, such a great precedent.

>> ^blankfist:

Democrats. The party of war?

Recent House vote to require that the Afghanistan war supplemental only be used to fund a withdrawal from Afghanistan:

Democrats: 93 in favor, 157 opposed
Republicans: 7 in favor, 164 opposed

Subsequent vote on an amendment to the same bill to establish a legislative requirement for a withdrawal timeline:

Democrats: 153 in favor, 98 opposed
Republicans: 9 in favor, 162 opposed

Though it doesn't look like it, I did include all of the Libertarian party votes and Independent votes in those counts -- there are zero of either in the House.

So basically, >90% of all the votes cast against the war came from the Democratic party.

Better still, it came from the most progressive members of the Democratic party -- people like Grayson, Weiner, and Kucinich. Most of the Democratic votes against came from the "Blue Dogs", a group of DINOs who claim that their Republican-leaning districts demand they mostly vote like Republicans -- people who progressives like me would just love to replace with someone even more left-wing when possible.

As for Obama himself, I see a massive difference in how he approaches the topic of war. The fact that you don't just goes to show that you approach the entire subject of Obama and the Democratic party platform with partisan blinders, and obvious bad faith.

I like some of Ron Paul's ideals... unfortunately about 70% of what I've heard from him comes out as bat-shit insane and impractical in the world we currently live in.

>> ^blankfist:

If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back.

First you would need to find a Democrat who believed your false premise about Obama following the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine would have demanded that Obama make a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran as soon as we became concerned that they may pose a threat to US interests in the foreseeable future.

Instead, Obama is engaging in multilateral diplomatic sanctions, which you are falsely equating with war.

All that said, I'm sure you could find such uninformed liberals who're vowing to oppose Obama in 2012 all over the place, I bet you could even find a few here.

Upvote for the discussion.

On a sidenote: Tony Blair 'very much exaggerated' Iran's role in Iraq

Am I the only who thinks Ron Paul looks eerily like Marshall Applewhite?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back.
First you would need to find a Democrat who believed your false premise about Obama following the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine would have demanded that Obama make a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran as soon as we became concerned that they may pose a threat to US interests in the foreseeable future.
Instead, Obama is engaging in multilateral diplomatic sanctions, which you are falsely equating with war.
All that said, I'm sure you could find such uninformed liberals who're vowing to oppose Obama in 2012 all over the place, I bet you could even find a few here. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Bush doctrine... wait, did not Bush, and McCain, and republicans raise the war horn for a "threatening" Iran? So, did I miss something, or did Bush not make a preemptive strike when he was President?

Sure, the Bush Doctrine says to attack, but not that we must attack--as he proved.

Second, I am sure most Afghans do not really care what you call it Net, however, when the day is finished and the sand and rock blasted, and the drones done with their assualts and what-not, and the dead American soliders, well, it boils down to a war. Maybe not Obama's war, maybe not his choice of escaltion for whatever purpose (Multilateral or not,) maybe not his harem in the basement of the White House (I would have one!,) but in the hot sun, philosophy blows-cock.

So whatever reason, however handled, what not, does not change death to life, poverty to both nations to richness, or ideals in both parties. You make excuses, and like I said, maybe Obama cannot stop the chain of events, only help, but it still happens.

@Lawdeedaw, you seem confused.

I'm opposed to escalating Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to people trying to make sweeping generalizations about Democrats based on a series of false premises and fallacious logic. People are entitled to their opinion on Obama and the decisions he's making as President. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts about what Obama has said or done.

If there's a candidate in 2012 who's a better fit to my values than Obama on the ballot with a credible shot at winning, I'll vote for 'em.

Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to what I believe on 9 out of 10 topics. Even so, I don't see why the remaining Paultards think Ron Paul's empty campaign promises will get followed through on any more than anyone else who's ever run for President, especially given that he's got no support for his platform within his own party.

I definitely don't understand why they think they're going to win support from anti-war Democrats with their messaging strategy. All the CFL ever does is call everything we try to achieve "tyranny", unless they happen to agree with us on a topic, then they just call us hypocrites because we don't all immediately disown the Democratic party and swear undying loyalty to Paul the minute he makes an empty promise on the topic.

It seems mostly like just crap he tells his supporters so they'll repeat his line of reasoning thinking they're engaging in some sort of open-minded bipartisan outreach, when what he's really doing is prepping them to get all hostile and defensive when said "outreach" inevitably gets rejected.

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw, you seem confused.
I'm opposed to escalating Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to people trying to make sweeping generalizations about Democrats based on a series of false premises and fallacious logic. People are entitled to their opinion on Obama and the decisions he's making as President. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts about what Obama has said or done.
If there's a candidate in 2012 who's a better fit to my values than Obama on the ballot with a credible shot at winning, I'll vote for 'em.
Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to what I believe on 9 out of 10 topics. Even so, I don't see why the remaining Paultards think Ron Paul's empty campaign promises will get followed through on any more than anyone else who's ever run for President, especially given that he's got no support for his platform within his own party.
I definitely don't understand why they think they're going to win support from anti-war Democrats with their messaging strategy. All the CFL ever does is call everything we try to achieve "tyranny", unless they happen to agree with us on a topic, then they just call us hypocrites because we don't all immediately disown the Democratic party and swear undying loyalty to Paul the minute he makes an empty promise on the topic.
It seems mostly like just crap he tells his supporters so they'll repeat his line of reasoning thinking they're engaging in some sort of open-minded bipartisan outreach, when what he's really doing is prepping them to get all hostile and defensive when said "outreach" inevitably gets rejected.


Fair enough. I was just pointing out that Bush did not even follow his own doctrine. Also, santions (Of the economic type) are a blockade of sorts and are at least an aggression.

Lastly, I was saying, in relation to Obama's approach to war, he is nearly identiacal to Bush. I say this not because his strategy is similar, rather, he follows the base of his party in the matter. If they said Home, he would bring them home. If they say Escalation, he escalates. If they say carpet bombs, he throws carpet bombs.

At least this is MO, not actual fact. Perhaps he is doing what is best for the war. Howdy knows.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Lastly, I was saying, in relation to Obama's approach to war, he is nearly identiacal to Bush. I say this not because his strategy is similar, rather, he follows the base of his party in the matter. If they said Home, he would bring them home. If they say Escalation, he escalates. If they say carpet bombs, he throws carpet bombs.
At least this is MO, not actual fact. Perhaps he is doing what is best for the war. Howdy knows.


I've not seen any polling that shows that Obama's base is in favor of what he's doing in Afghanistan. What polls are you looking at?

From where I sit, rather connected with what I consider Obama's base, there's pretty much a universal sense that it's time to withdraw.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.