It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wow - All Republicans In Congress Against The War

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Consequences of this war, nobody really thought of them.

And now American Citizens are getting terror training and Al Qaeda and maybe others are spreading their influence worldwide. It's not going to stop no matter what any military does, so the war, only gave them a reason fight us nonstop.

Violence doesn't change/stop everything, sometimes, it only keeps going.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Let me tell you what is going to happen:

1. You will be lucky if you can fill your gas tank or cool your home after the democrats ram the energy tax bill through.

2. You will be lucky to put food on your plate after the dollar implodes due to the insane spending.

3. Social security? LOL you will be working until you die. It is totally insolvent. The government is incapable of paying out on it. They will print the money to make the payments. Your social security check will not buy you a loaf of bread.

4. Medicare - gone. Totally bankrupt. 50 trillion in the hole at least.

5. They will start a third war with Iran. This will end up in a bloodbath unlike the Afghan and Iraq wars. China has huge interests to protect.

6. The recent wall street regulatory bill is a total sham. They will have another bailout of the banks here shortly. The bill was written by wall street interests. Any crying by the banks is a joke. The only banks hurt by this bill are small credit unions, which will be run out of business.

7. The oil spill is a joke. BP did it intentionally to ram cap and trade through, which they stand to make billions off of after they drive coal out of business. BP is limited to 75 million in clean up and is about to be limited to 20 billion in damages, which is nothing. They will not be put out of business.

You are being lied to about everything.

Everything.

Nothing government or the media is telling you is true.

You are suckers if you believe government is going to ever take care of you, protect you, or do anything in your best interest - ever.

suckers.




[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
You know...I could go hysterical like I did trying to rationalize what I just read....but on further contemplation...


I'm not surprised what so ever. I should have expected this actually.

And you all know that I'm 100% right on that one.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
One word: Duh.

More words:
Those who voted for the war were either too caught up in the "I'm a patriot! See my flag?" wave or they broke under the weight of peer pressure and voted for the war because they didn't want people accusing them of allowing terrorists to win the same way they were doing it to others.

Pity the TRUE mavericks of politics (no chance would I ever include Sarah 'I'll say whatever you want me to so long as the check clears' Palin in that category) are silenced by the majority. Forget Democrats or Republicans...they are all cowards.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





I take issue with the Civil War...Lincoln did everything in his power to provoke a war.


Lincoln was a Republican.



Lincoln wasn't a conservative.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Lincoln wasn't a conservative.


Are you suggesting that Lincoln was not a Republican? As to Lincoln's conservatism, why don't you tell me what you think Lincoln was conserving?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Lincoln wasn't a conservative.


Are you suggesting that Lincoln was not a Republican? As to Lincoln's conservatism, why don't you tell me what you think Lincoln was conserving?



I'm suggesting that he was a Whig up to 1854, and promoted protectionist trade policies and expansionist government.

Neither of which are constitutional nor conservative.


"The Republican Party was first organized in 1854, growing out of a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soil Democrats who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress"

The original republican party, of which Lincoln was a member, was a conglomeration of "democrats" - big government types.

Slavery was a side issue.

They didn't care about the slaves, they cared about profits by putting the cheap southern labor out of business.




[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lincoln was in fact the First Republican President, and I don't know why you keep insisting that Republicans are conservatives. What are they conserving, because it sure as hell isn't the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lincoln was in fact the First Republican President, and I don't know why you keep insisting that Republicans are conservatives. What are they conserving, because it sure as hell isn't the Constitution.



While the party certainly isn't perfect, I'd take them any day of the week and twice on sunday over the democrats.

Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, Eisenhower, etc.. not perfect, but certainly better than most.

Lincoln was a Whig, a democrat, the party didn't move toward small government until much later.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



Thank you for so beautifully and articulately expressing what so many Americans are feeling and thinking concerning ethics and leadership.

It's going to add up come election time, as long as people find someone they can support.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by Copperflower]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You can take your party and do with it what you want. Political parties are not a requirement, and certainly not mandated by Constitution. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, took great pains to warn the people of the evils of political parties, but the people ignored him then, and continue to do so to this day. I do not have to be a Republican in order to admire individual candidates, whether that candidate by Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, and I certainly do not have to be a Republican in order to like Ike.

Political parties are obsessed with power, and herein lies the biggest problem with political parties, not to mention the clear divisiveness they foster, as evidenced by this very thread. Where you and I should easily be allies in our endeavors to restrain an out of control government, we spend too much time bickering over pointless bits of data. If you wish to campaign on behalf of the Republican party this is your right to do so, but the Republican Party is every bit as much of the problem as the Democratic Party is, and partisan politics praising parties that have both contributed to the expansion of government at the expense of inalienable rights will not get us any closer to restraining an out of control government.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

You are being lied to about everything.

Everything.

Nothing government or the media is telling you is true.

You are suckers if you believe government is going to ever take care of you, protect you, or do anything in your best interest - ever.

suckers.




[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



Thats why the only comedy channels I have on my TV are MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CNN, and any other news station there is. It's just all laughable. They lie and probably have scripts that are 70% blacked out just like the Roswell Document that came out from the FOIA.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Can someone break this down for me? Didn't the republicans in senate and house vote yes to starting Afganistan and Iraq wars? It seems like a giant flip flop. It's just too good to be true for them ALL to suddenly become anti-war. It's not just war-profiteering for their buddies, it's also part of the Us vs. Them mentality that so many republicans have. If this is true and they don't have an ulterior motive, it's smoking gun proof that a pole-shift has occured and we are entering the age of peace (call it what you will)



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I would like to see how this comment actually plays out. I need to actually see it to believe it so to speak. Also, I want to see if all the other congressmen are actually against it or not. IF and when this comes out, there will be some more people trying to confirm it.

If it turns out to be true, well, its about damn time. But its also useless. I can guarantee you that if Obama wants to keep the wars going (doesnt look like he is letting up much to be honest) then the dem's will fall in line with him and say its a necessity or something along those lines. Its just a flip flop so that the party that isnt in control can identify with the disenfranchised among us and get the votes next go around. Just watch, America has been getting screwed by crooked people and we the people are the idiots that keep putting them into office. Its sad really.

Everybody on this board can talk about how this party or that party has had a track record in the past of stopping the wars or being the better party, but none of that actually matters now. If you havent had your eyes open the past couple of years, let me open them for you. Since at least FDR this country has been going to #e. Go back and actually do the research. In fact, just look from Clinton on forward and you will know they are scumbags. Clinton with his word games, Bush with his ability to draw power from another source but the Constitution and now Obama, the great b.s.er. Im honestly not even mad at them cause they got elected and took advantage of the power that was given to them cause we are the numbskulls that gave it to them and continue to do so. Its time to get this taken care of once and for all.

To me, you cant even elect somebody that is a career politician. I wouldnt trust em as far as I can throw them. Id rather have somebody that is running for the first time and has now experience what so ever go in there and take care of the mess that is government. Think about it, if you or I were to step in there and saw all the red tape you know damn straight that we would start cutting it down. But, as we elect career politician after career politician they just keep putting the red tape up more and more. They also keep finding ways to keep themselves in power. Its got to stop or we will finally be flushed down the toilet.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I don't know.

I voted for Ron Paul. Not perfect, some tradeoffs, but would have been a good disruptor for a few years. Maybe he'll run again.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Tell me who I should vote for to end the wars.

That's all I want to know.

I want the insanity to stop.

It will not stop.

We have a completely criminal government gone mad and we will pay for it dearly.



No one you VOTE for will end the war. Look at your last line!

Would the criminals stop the war if it was making them money?

Of course not. This is fascism. Until the people stop empowering the criminals nothing will change. That means feeding the beast in its various forms.

Corporations in collusion with a handful of billionares make policy. These politicans are administering that policy. They have no real ability to influence the agenda without being at least discredited and slandered.

So they are criminals in collusion to make a Buck, and were supporting the whole structure of tyranny with our 401k, retirement accounts, and savings.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by ISHAMAGI]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It's not "my" political party.

In case you missed it, I don't believe in government at all.

See that big A beneath my name?

The state is a criminal organization of looters.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I haven't missed it at all, and is precisely why I am taking you to task for campaigning on behalf of that party.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I haven't missed it at all, and is precisely why I am taking you to task for campaigning on behalf of that party.



If a party is going to end the wars and limit the government I'm going to praise them for it.

It doesn't mean I want the tyranny that still comes with rest of what the party represents.

Good should be praised.

Bad should be ridiculed.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If and when they actually bring these wars to an end, then by all means praise them. Otherwise, all you are doing is praising them for potential rhetoric that seemingly hasn't even been spoken yet, only hinted at.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join