Let’s Call Establishment Dems What They Are: REPUBLICANS

[Satan]

[Kristy]

More pseudo-left horseshit.


Kill yourself, slave FORD

[Satan]

[Kristy]

When were you first diagnosed with autism?

[cadaverdog]

Seriously Ford your "they're not really democrats" bullshit is getting mighty old. When are you going to accept the fact that neither party gives a flying fuck about you (or anybody else that isn't lining their pockets with money) or your ideas on what they should do or be?

[Satan]

One party fascist states aren't my idea of fun. If that's what you're into, try Somalia. All the guns you want, lots of religious fanatacism, no government or regulation to get in the way.

[cadaverdog]

You can't just say Obama or Hillary or whoever are not democrats just because you don't like they way they operate. Obviously the powers behind the democratic party aprove or they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have within the party.

[cadaverdog]

One party fascist states aren't my idea of fun. If that's what you're into, try Somalia. All the guns you want, lots of religious fanatacism, no government or regulation to get in the way.

Who's talking about one party facist states?

[Satan]

The Demoncratic Party has a certain set of principles. While Candidate Obama made a great show of those principles, President Obama did not do so, in action. Same could be said for Bill Clinton, who also gave some memorable speeches back in the day about a "new covenant" and "building a bridge to the 21st century".

The reality is that, with Bill & Barry merely continuing the fucked up foreign AND domestic polices of the BCE (with only slight differences in management) not only do we not have any 21st century bridges (or other infrastructure) but the existing 20th century infrastructure is crumbling around us, and the money that should be used to fix it has either been stolen by billionaire inheritance brats, or wasted on wars based on the paranoia of Russian born lunatics who fraudulently claim to be descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

This ain't the party of FDR, JFK, or Jimmy Carter. Let alone Tommy Jefferson.

[cadaverdog]

This ain't the party of FDR, JFK, or Jimmy Carter. Let alone Tommy Jefferson.

The same party that got us into two world wars, The Korean Conflict and Viet Nam.

[Satan]

The same party that got us into two world wars, The Korean Conflict and Viet Nam.

Well, you're half right. Truman certainly made the wrong call on Korea. And it's certainly questionable whether Woodrow Wilson should have dragged the US into World War I because a handful of Americans were dumb enough to be passengers on somebody else's boat, while that country was at war. I would have stayed out of it.

FDR certainly didn't have a choice after Pearl Harbor. And JFK tried to get out of Vietnam before it really started (though it had been building since the late 50s, so he inherited it from the BCE/Eisenhower. He actually had the paper work on his desk to get the Hell out of Vietnam when he took a certain field trip to Dallas in 1963. And apparently once the BCE/CIA demonstrated how committed they were to keeping their "Golden Triangle" heroin smuggling route open, LBJ didn't question it again. Until 1968, when he also tried to get out of it, but was betrayed at the end by BCE/Nixon operatives making treasonous deals behind his back during the campaign.

[Terry]

You can't just say Obama or Hillary or whoever are not democrats just because you don't like they way they operate. Obviously the powers behind the democratic party aprove or they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have within the party.

I think the broader point is that the present-day Democratic Party has substantially much less to do with traditional liberalism or a truly progressive agenda than what the Democratic Party stood for in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The Clintons have always TALKED a good liberal game, but Obama has actually presided over the enactment of far more legislation that could be loosely defined as liberal or progressive in the traditional sense than either of the Clintons ever did. However, the present-day Democratic Party has far more to do with corporatism than liberalism.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a democrat and is running for the democratic nomination, but that's about as far as it goes with the Clintons. If one looks at what Bill Clinton actually DID while in office, it was basically a continuum from the Reagan, HW Bush years and slotted nicely between the Bush presidencies in terms of actual policies.

[Seshmeister]

Well, you're half right. Truman certainly made the wrong call on Korea. And it's certainly questionable whether Woodrow Wilson should have dragged the US into World War I because a handful of Americans were dumb enough to be passengers on somebody else's boat, while that country was at war. I would have stayed out of it.

There is a lot more to it than the Lusitania.

As ever follow the money, that's where the real power is. By 1917 France and Britain owed the US vast amounts of money after waging a nightmarish war for years. America had to enter the war to make sure the right side won to make sure they got their money repaid.

[cadaverdog]

Well, you're half right.

Incorrect. I'm 100% right. The president (if he's doing his job) has the last say on whether or not we go to war. I'm not saying those decisions were wrong, I don't agree with you on Korea but I think most people would agree getting involved in Viet Nam was a big mistake. Ike and JFK (who you left out of the conversation) had the good sense not to send combatant troops over there. LBJ didn't. I've never looked into the specifics of WW1 but not entering WW2 might have been the biggest mistake ever. I'm not sure Hitler would have tried to come across the pond if he had overtaken England but the Soviets might have still come out on top and annexed most of Europe. If that would have happened we might all be speaking Russian right now.

[cadaverdog]

I think the broader point is that the present-day Democratic Party has substantially much less to do with traditional liberalism or a truly progressive agenda than what the Democratic Party stood for in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

I agree but then again we don't live in a fantasy world where one party is the good guys and the other is evil incarnate like Ford does. Maybe someday in the future the US will have more than two parties in control of our government and then we'll have a better chance of electing a president that actually wants to do our bidding instead of doing the bidding of the people who actually call the shots now, be it the BCE, The Illuminati, The Koch Brothers, or Ronald McDonald.