Want Poverty, Oppression and War? Vote Republican! »
Posted By populist 10 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsThe Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what's wrong with that? "If we don't kill them over there, they will kill us over here."
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
1574 Views Share Story 23 Comments Report
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 81 (view all)
-
75%
jordan1110 months, 2 weeks ago
As poverty rates have increased, oppression lies in wait under the guise of the 'patriot act', & 'war' exists under this moronic group of republicans, I'd say that the comment " Want Poverty, Oppression and War? Vote Republican!" is redundant. True, but redundant.
Reply-
-
davidhallstromComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
14%
Buzzy110 months, 2 weeks ago
How infantile the analogy of voting Republican equals voting for war
Reply
While Iraq 2 may have been a mistake George Herbeert WalkerBush gave us Iraq 1--would you rather not have gone in then and let Hussein rule the entire Mideast?and as to Afghanistan I don't believe there are many Democrats , certain Clinton, Biden, and Obama, that upported that war after 9/11. It seems like your whole case is you didn't like one war, Iraq II--which among wars in the 20th and 21st century while displaying savegery on all sides is still relatively small
And while we are at it didn''t Wilson , a Democrat take us to war in WWI, FDR, a Democrat in WWII, Truman a Democrat in the Korean War, First Kennedy then Johnson in the Vietnam War and Clinton into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia?
I think your partisanship for what are undoubtedly socially driven ideology has caused you to grossly oversimplfy the history of foreign involvements -
17%
Endoscopy10 months, 2 weeks ago
What a biased left wing bunch of stuff left behind from the south end of a north bound bull.
Reply
Some facts since 1900
WW1 President Wilson Democrat
WW2 President Roosevelt Democrat
Korea President Truman Democrat
Viet Nam President Kennedy Democrat
Bay of Pigs President Kenedy Democrat
Grenada President Reagan Republican
Panama President Reagan Republican
Gulf War President Bush Republican
Bosnia President Clinton Democrat
Herzegovina President Clinton Democrat
Afghanistan President Bush Republican
Iraq President Bush Republican
6 Democrat
5 Republican
This leave out the things like Blackhawk down and some missles that Clinton sent.
Which party is the biggest warmonger. It looks like the Democrats have the lead.
-
-
82%
AntiNeoCon10 months, 2 weeks ago
All you have to do is check your political history, the country generally speaking does not prosper under republican rule, neither do the people.
Reply-
-
17%
Endoscopy10 months, 2 weeks ago
What a bunch of garbage. Things were great under Eisenhower.
Reply
Then going under Kennedy there was the beginnings of inflation. When Johnson took office it started climbing.
Nixon took over ant the same thing happened. Ford became president and it started leveling off mostly because he vetoed every spending bill he could get away with.
Then came Carter. Ugh. Stagflation through the roof with double digit inflation. Had my biggest raises then just to keep the same buying power.
Reagan took over and the inflation went down even though the Democrats projected gloom and doom. Things kept getting better and better. Bush took over and more of the same.
Clinton came along and the offsetting biggest tax increase in history was coupled with the balanced budget forced on him by the Republicans. Going into his last year there was a drop in my 401K of 1/6.
The first year of Bush another drop of 1/6 and then everything went up again in the stock market. Things have prospered even though the Super libs talk back and forth about how bad it is.
The problem the Libs have is when asked how they or anyone they personally know the is doing answer is just fine. Then they go on to rant about how bad everybody else has it. Then the same old tired story about how the poor keep on getting poorer and the rich keep on getting richer. The main problem is the definition of poor and rich keep changing.
-
-
86%
AntiNeoCon10 months, 2 weeks ago
david - I do not recall the economy being so great under Ike, times were pretty hard, low pay but the cost of living was cheaper. I thought Nixon was a pretty good president and did pretty well for the people...at least he cared about them. Then Reagan came along and the country began a shift to the right. Reagan was the first to spend like a drunken sailor and we ended up with a rather large national debt. Bush 1 & 2 carried on the "trickle down' theory. Now we have a huge national debt that continues to grow daily. The republican party used to care about the working classes at one time, but after Reagan they concentrated on Corporations and the rich leaving the "little people" behind.
Reply-
20%
Endoscopy10 months, 2 weeks ago
Poor little crybaby. Under Eisenhower the country had come out of WW2 and Korea. The returning servicemen from Korea were a bit of a problem but almost all people could go after the American dream. My father earned about $50 a week but gas was $.25/gal and $5.00 would but food for a week. We had all we needed and then some.
Reply
Reagan understood what Kennedy did. That companies do not pay taxes. The customers of companies pay the companies taxes. Both fought to lower the top tax rates and succeeded. Guess what. It brought in more money in taxes.
Liberals don't seem to understand what these two understood. When you make laws about taxes people change the way they handle money.
Remember that under Reagan and Bush there was a tax and spend Democrats running Congress most of the time. Democrats knuckled under to the tax cuts but pushed even harder on the spending. But you blame the spending on the President.
-
-
Mr-CrusherComment removed: User banned.
-
100%
simonsez10 months, 2 weeks ago
The fifties were very good with home ownership on the rise, companies that had been involved in the war effort expanding into consumer products, families able to function on one salary and a strong sense of country.
Reply
The parents of the veterans had been through the depression and were careful with their finances and prices were generally low.
There was no TV to speak of, at least in rural areas, so we grew up not knowing what we didn't know. We were allowed to be kids and do what kids do.
It was a good time to be young ...-
100%
CRYMTYPHON10 months, 2 weeks ago
Some one else could give a very diferent but still factual account of the 50's; but I do like yours.
Reply -
0%
AntiNeoCon10 months, 2 weeks ago
simonsez - I like your version of America....wish we could return to those days with a little better pay of course. ;o)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON10 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama is a harvard lawyer with a big house, 2 best sellers and a firm belief in the spirit of competition.
Reply
Can't really call him a marxist unless you like the word 'marxist' more than the word 'truthfull'.
as for taxes, - if it is bad to tax and spend, it is worse to spend without the guts to tax. Deficit spending is merely taxation deferred; it is leaving the bill on the doorstep of the next administration, ringing the bell and running like heck away. -
75%
donald5110 months, 2 weeks ago
only a pure idiot would actually think any American could support Marxism after history has shown so many failures of Marxism... but FSU only has a physical fitness degree and a lot of bigotry!
Reply
-
-
-
75%
CRYMTYPHON10 months, 2 weeks ago
Pride.
Reply
They can't admit they were wrong.
It's a spiritual condition, not a political position.
-
-
25%
gattoprtrchy10 months, 2 weeks ago
Some of these posts are really funny. I seem to recall how well people were doing when Ronald Reagan was in office. He saw a problem brewing in Grenada and took care of it practically overnight! I myself don't care which political party bares the better candidate.I'll cross party lines for the good of this country. I will admit that Bush needs to retire and go back to his ranch. But with a liberal congress presiding, how can he accomplish anything? Hillary Clinton says she would reach out to the opposing party for the good of all. But I remember watching President Bush addressing our nation immediately after the 9-11 attacks. Hillary was a disgrace in front of millions on national t.v..She stared at the ceiling while he was speaking. Rolled her eyes like an immature child! That's the Democratic party for you. They just love mud slinging and creating decension! No good can come from them.
Reply-
67%
AntiNeoCon10 months, 2 weeks ago
And of course the right wing (holy rollers) are far above demeaning people right?
Reply
Bush had a Republican congress most of the time, thats what happened to America, they rubber stamped everything he wanted.
Where were you during this time, what planet or were you down in Florida using FSU92 for gator bait?
I'll vote for that. ;o) GO GATORS!! -
86%
hyperbola10 months, 2 weeks ago
Well Gatto, sounds like you are easily suckered by propaganda sound bites. Under Reagan:
Reply
1. Taxes on all Americans except the super-rich were raised twice.
2. 40% of Americans lost their savings and became net debtors.
3. We had the worst economic record of any modern president (Carter had a better record on growth, wages and employment).
4. Reagan expanded and deepened the corruption in our government with enormous payouts to corrupt defence companies of the "iron triangle".
5. Reagan turned loose fundamentalist fanatics, drug dealers, arms dealers, .... to kill 300,000 christians in central america.
One could go on and on ...........
-
-
-
75%
donald5110 months, 2 weeks ago
Don't lie to us simon, we've seen you defend Dumya too much already! Couldn't even give examples to support your lie, so typically repug of you!
Reply
Repug Congress energy bill threw out all the energy anti-monopoly laws and the Bush FEC dropped collateral requirements in 2004 for wall street transactions to unleash the oil speculators.... its only the threat of a Dem bill to bring the speculators under control that has brought the recent drop in prices! -
75%
hyperbola10 months, 2 weeks ago
Well yes, Phil Gramm (McCain's chief economic advisor) was absolutely critical in establishing the mechanisms for the presently massive financial corruption. This will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars and is right in line with McCain's involvement in the Saving and Loans scandal of the Reagan/Bush administration that also cost taxpayers an arm and a leg to pay off a corrupt "elite".
Reply
-
-
MrXfromPlanetXComment removed: Spam
-
-
20%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin10 months, 2 weeks ago
''McCain is preaching war for 100 years.''
Reply
fabrication
here's what he said, not that it matters
utility trumps truth every time in politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
does a hundred years 'as long as Americans are not being hurt, wounded or killed' sound like 'preaching war'?
if there are wars where no one gets hurt-well, those'd be my kinda wars
It's a ridiculous statement & makes no sense, but why lie about it? [rhetorical-I know there's an election to be won]
of course to a degree the problem goes back to other lies, told by other people, who wanted to call Iraq a war after a certain point to get people to support a foreign occupation
what McCain is calling for is continued occupation
---
I've already analyzed the atrociousness of his statement. It has nothing to do with the lie that McCain is calling for 100 years of war
by saying 'as long as no Americans are hurt' we'll stay for 100 years, McCain is in effect TELLING people who DON"T want us in Iraq to HURT Americans, then he'd no longer be OK with continued occupation, and hence would want to leave.
It's an asinine and potentially treasonous thing to say, but is not 'preaching war for 100 years'-
100%
CRYMTYPHON10 months, 2 weeks ago
of course to a degree the problem goes back to other lies, told by other people,
Reply
Well said. -
75%
donald5110 months, 2 weeks ago
continued occupation of an Arab state for 100 years just gurantees three more generations of radical Moslem terrorists more.... would you like 100 years of Arab occupation of America? You will always have an "Ugly American" perspective until you can put yourself in the other man's shoes!
Reply -
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
80%
hyperbola10 months, 2 weeks ago
McCain is EXACTLY about keeping America at war for the next 100 years. That has become the means for controlling the American population and continuing the fleecing of Americans for a corrupt "elite".
Reply
Reagan Republican: Are You Ready For Nuclear War?
To keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/19/reagan-republican-are-you-ready-for-nuclear-war/
How To Conceal Massive Economic Collapse - Wag the Dog
What to do? War and threats of war have been used historically to distract the population and deflect public scrutiny from economic calamity. this tactic is now rampant in the US.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/18/how-to-conceal-massive-economic-collapse-wag-the-dog/ -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.