Difference between Democrats and Republicans on Foreign Policies

Submitted by on

Democrats deny everything and tell you you're stupid.

Republicans try to deny it but can't and tell you you're a moron.

That's it. Now go out and vote you stupid morons.

Topic: 

Tags: 

Rating: 

0
No votes yet

Comments

what's that old Huey Long saying?

sartoris's picture

Huey Long said something like: A Democrat will hurt you, but a Republican will kill you every time. The differences between the two parties used to be much starker. They are getting closer and closer to becoming the same party. On foreign policy I would say that the only remaining difference is that one prefers to kill with drones and bombs, the other prefers more boots on the ground. Dead is still dead.

0
No votes yet

Then again, just read this article by Chris Floyd who suggests.

Big Al's picture

"Like last year's NY Times piece that first detailed the murder racket being run directly out of the White House, the new Washington Post story is replete with quotes from "senior Administration officials" who have obviously been authorized to speak. Once again, this is a story that Obama and his team WANT to tell. They want you to know about the murder program and their strenuous exertions to make it permanent; they are proud of this, they think it makes them look good. They want it to be part of their legacy, something they can pass on to future generations: arbitrary, lawless, systematic murder."

Makes sense. So on the one hand Obama wants to play it up for political reasons, make him look tough and all that, but on the other hand the rest of the politicians want to walk a fine line or stay out it altogether. Figures though, there is no way it's constitutional and it's immoral and illegal.
The thing is, if the war on terror was legal and/or constitutional, then they'd have a point. What difference would it be say during WWII, the allies plotting to kill certain Germans on a daily basis? That's war. And look at the civilian casualties during WWII (caused by the Allies like say in the bombing of Dresden or the annihilation of Nagasaki), the supposed "Good War". Enormous, yet generally accepted as part of war. I'm sure there was outrage back then. But the outrage now is interesting considering that is normally part of war. What does that show? Does it simply show who accepts the GWOT and who doesn't?

0
No votes yet

This is good one,

Big Al's picture

"There is little point in going through the Post story and offering detailed comment. The sickening nature of this perpetual-motion death-machine -- and the husk-like inhumanity of those who operate it and the sycophants who applaud it -- are all too plain. Just read the whole thing, and see for yourself. See how these butchers -- our bipartisan elites, our whole respectable, self-righteous establishment -- have trapped us all in an Age of Hell."

Age of Hell.

I watched a video last night about the Globalization of NATO with James Corbett interviewing Rick Rozoff. Both are very knowledgeable in foreign affairs, Rozoff specializing in NATO. The picture they paint indicates there may not be a damn thing we can do about the plans for world empire. Come hell or high water.

0
No votes yet

Refugee from Kos Land

Arcparser's picture

I guess I clicked where I shouldn't have clicked ...

Warning from Administrator:

"If you're going to start uprating people claiming there's no difference between Obama and Romney, then this site isn't for you."

(And beneath there's a little acknowledge button!)

My response:

"How obnoxious. You can't just weave a false claim out of straw and expect me to acknowledge it. The specific comments I uprated yesterday never claimed that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. They merely expressed dismay at President Obama's continuation and expansion of some of Bush's abhorrent policies and how this detracted from our appreciation of him as an exceptional Democratic president.
I uprated those comments because they resonated with me and they were true. If there is no room for truth on this site, then go ahead and ban me. I've been coming here for years, but I'm a light poster, so I don't care. But next time you ban someone, it would sure be helpful if you got your facts straight."

0
No votes yet

Welcome to our reality, arcparser

geomoo's picture

Here, we attempt to keep things at least marginally in resonance with what is actually happening. And we are all long-time veterans of DK, so we know the score. It took a long time for me to wean myself, but I now never bother even to go to the site. Most others here still keep an eye on what is happening over there. Meanwhile, we are attempting to build a site that is

1) run democratically through consensus of a group of us taking into account the opinions of every serious user who ever posted here.

2) debates involve facts and opinions, not character assassination, insults, and ad hominem.

3) we focus on issues and policy rather than on personality and party.

It's good to see you here. The insults we receive on DK are apparently helping us. We are slowly building, so please stick with us while we build and grow.

0
No votes yet

Welcome Arcparser - please comment, write, or lurk as you wish

sartoris's picture

Glad to see you here and hope that you enjoy the site. This is not a site like DK. It's not a fan club for any specific politician. If there is some subject that you feel passionate about then please feel free to write and share. Take a look at some of postings and make yourself at home. Oh, and if you feel so inclined share the story behind your name. Very interesting name. Welcome!

0
No votes yet

Hi there, and welcome!

Mehitabel's picture

I managed to get myself banned yesterday for not publicly drinking the Kool-Aid - tonight's open thread will have more to say about that.

Consider VOTS as a safe haven. We might strenuously disagree with what you have to say here, but we'll never ban you for saying it as long as you respect our site policies (which I think are pretty reasonable).

0
No votes yet