Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The original Anti War candidate. George McGovern.

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 21, 2012, 11:13 a.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

He flew many bombing missions in WWII, but created the Anti War dem agenda. For decades the war mongering republican opposition used the anti war/weak on defense mantra to defeat dems and move them to the right. .
For McGovern we should recognize that the republican war mongering opposition is still pulling us towards war. For all anti war candidates we should exhibit half the bravery of George McGovern in denouncing the right wing fear mongering that currently keeps the 'war on terror' alive, & is attempting to pressure us into invading Iran.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-george-mcgovern-20121021,0,4225248.story

228 Comments

228 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

warmongering exist in both parties

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

water exists on Mars

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I have to pee

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

... on romney & co

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the repubs need to get over themselves

they not important enough to pee on

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

not good enough to govern

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs have always been the war/fear mongerers. Dems have always been for peace and criticized for being weak on defense as a result.

Repubs are the ones who exploited the 9/11 attacks and to use fear of the Muslims to create the war on terror and rights violations.

Repubs are trying to create a muslim witch hunt (Bachman + 4 other repubs) and are targeting dems!

Repubs are exaggerating about the strength of Al Qaeda (P King R NY) to keep Americans in fear and perpetuate the war on terror.

Repubs (Lyndsey Graham) are criticizing dems for "trying to paint a picture that Al Qaeda has been decimated" so they can keep us scared and continue their war on terror.

Dems are trying to play down Al Qaeda & any terrorist attack (thats why repubs have jumped on Obamas efforts not to discuss the Libya attack as such)

We MUST play down Al Qaeda attacks so that we can declare the war on terror over and end the drone bombings & rights violations.

No? If we are truly against war we gotta be sophisticated enough to know that the fear mongering propaganda came 1st & must go 1st.

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives & protest all pols against all war & rights violations.

[Deleted]

[-] 6 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

despite the propaganda about democrats being for peace, we engage in war policy under both democrats and republicans.

Al Qaada attacks are a fictional answer to failed US policy

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

clinton bombed afghanistan and north africa. bosnia

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He also bombed Iraq and said they had WMD's

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't not support the government line in calling the libya US embassy attack an act of terror

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

It is your matter of fact, unemotional way in denouncing Obama for his escalating drone war, is what bothers the shit out of most of us.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My personal emotionalism, matter of factness is applied by others. Personal issues are irrelevant. I AM AGAINST THE DRONE STRIKES!

I submit we should protest against them and identify & denounce the fear mongering propaganda because that is the fuel of war.

It is the matter of fact, unemotional way Americans pretend that the fear mongering propaganda is non existent, or not a problem that allows these wars & rights violations to continue.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

That's all well and fine..not really.... So you have no trouble voting for someone who continues, and even expands these drone killings, as well as all the other shit that he has been carrying out to the detriment of people in this country. Either you are 'into' having a revolutionary change in the way our government is run, or you are not. Your lack of 'true empathy' comes out loud and clear, and so does your partisanship.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

What "progressive policies are those? Bombing the shit out of people...the TPP....the NDAA...corporate welfare...no banksters prosecuted....the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, etc., etc.

The repubs didn't do this by themselves, rather there was unity between them, the dems, and their benefactors.

Your call to vote for progressive policies is ludicrous. What you really mean is vote Democratic, and see if it works this time. Don't you get it? Both parties have sold us out, and both have been irreparably corrupted.

Your faux, redundant, blather on being a revolutionary provides you with the 'cover' you need to continue your hack-like partisan campaign on an Occupy forum, and it is contradictory to what OWS is about, or what will work.

By far and away, you are the biggest dem lackey on this forum

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

So tell me, who are the "pro 99% progressives," and what indication do you have that they would suddenly start doing the right thing, especially since they still have the same benefactors?? To me you are just an apologist for SUPPOSED progressive politicians who have helped perpetuate this corrupt system, and in the process have caused untold human misery on a multitude of levels.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There's a very small handful in Congress, but only a couple that are willing to marginally speak out. I need you to get mad!!

http://votingnoconfidence.com/

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

I am mad, much more so than VQkag. I had thought of casting a no confidence vote, but did not see that as an option TODAY when I cast my absentee ballot, and I did feel like asking the election board people how to do it, so I went Green, with one exception in a state-wide race where i went with a pro-marijuana candidate.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Pretty cool video though on there, eh? nice remake.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the party duopoly in America is obviously corrupt. As a result we should elect pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99%.

BAM!

I gotta tell you who to vote for.? Gimme a break. Vote Stein. If you like. I try very hard not to campaign for particular parties or candidates.

Sorry you gotta put your big boy pants on and do the research for yourself.

But yeah much corruption in out politics. Money out of politics. Support Move to Amend!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

So you believe, like me, it would be foolish to vote for say 99% of the dems or repubs out there including Obama, and Romney. I think we may be making progress here if we agree on this.

"Big boy pants," don't worry, i have no trouble thinking for myself

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

For as long as you have been shilling on here, certainly you must have a huge list of the progressive dems who have not betrayed the American people like Obama has, and Romney will. OR do you just want us to believe them this time. I can understand you having a difficult time with this.

It might be time to go on the offensive with me, and call me a partisan again. lol

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

For how long have we thought that by voting for progressive candidates in the dem party that everything would be 'alright.' It is foolish to think that now, considering we are where we are at. You are just 'feeding' this corrupt system by pushing for these traitors.

"Protest"...you?.... perhaps, but just for 'cover,' to use this revolutionary forum to promote your partisan bullshit.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

The fact that you cannot come up with a list of candidates, who put people ahead of special interests says it all!! Your idea of voting for politicians who purportedly are 'for the people' translates' into believing their lies' one more time.

The dem and repub parties are rotten to the core, and if you can't see that, you are being blinded by your partisanship.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

I am neither "deaf or stupid." You have answered my question. I understand now how difficult it is for you.

Good Luck in all your efforts.

Peace

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

See ya'! Wouldn't wanna be ya'!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"where are the progressives"? Hard to find. Progressives in retreat for 30 years, in hiding. Only now finding any receptiveness with OWS.

Every one must search for progressives in their own districts.I can't do that for them.

I am fortunate that my district has pretty progressive reps. most people do not.

How is Jersey?

Look for them, support, & lift them up. If you don't find one create one! push an existing politician to progressiveness! Organize your community around progressive principles and pressure you existing representatives to be more progressive.

BE one! become a progressive politician.

Progressive solutions are the answer! All of us have responsibility to find, support, lift up, or create progressive representatives.

Do you know any on your ballot?

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

We, for the most part are "progressives," but that does not mean that we should continue to 'fight the good fight' in the same futile way that we have in the past. This defiant movement is about JUSTICE, nothing else, and as such it is apolitical, and in being so we have the chance to attract people well into the middle-right on the political spectrum.

Ever since you got here in late May, you have been pushing your progressive agenda, and in the process trying to transform this defiant movement into another failed liberal one. From the days of your using your multiple pseudonyms to up-vote yourself, and down-vote people who disagreed with you, you have proven to me why you are here. To be precise: You are here trying to transform this movement into something it is not, nor it should be.

This is a grass-roots movement that will grow exponentially through resistance/defiance, education, reaching out, collaboration, and perseverance, not by becoming part of the system. By taking the easy road, and legitimizing this system and by making people believe that we can vote our way out of this mess...at this point...is ludicrous, yet that's where your main efforts lie.

Please tell me, how can any good candidates come out of a party that has taken huge bribes, and has been instrumental in screwing the American people. The answer is with perhaps very, very few exceptions...they CAN'T. We in OWS will not take being 'screwed at a slower pace' as being acceptable anymore. That is why most of us are here, and it is also the reason why you are now down-voted so much now.

This corrupt political and financial system simply has too much to lose to let voting get in the way of their agenda. It is that simple.

~Odin~

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

No time, going out...read Chris Hedges books, or columns in Truthdig. The liberal class's failure should be evident to you though, otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we, eh?

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

It's long. There is no liberal class anymore. They're gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

The failure in the "pro 1% conservative ideology" is evident to most of us here, but that is not necessarily the case with people who still consider themselves republicans, or even moderate dems. These people are 'reachable, if we do this right. What you seem to be unable to understand is the failure in the liberal class, and their working in complicity with the former to screw us under the guise of protecting us from the big bad wolf. And if you do happen to comprehend this, why are you constantly shilling for ideologies and/or supposed candidates that are virtually no where to be found in this corrupt two party system?

You just want more of the same in the hopes it will work this time. Most of us know better.

~Odin~

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

You have taken a small part of my rather lengthy, thoughtful comment which referred to 'Americans', as in the PEOPLE, not parties or politicians, out of context, and 'ran with it' so that you feel justified in hacking away your BS on here. This is a well-known tactic of yours, and it stinks.

My lack of supposedly not being able to "understand the problem" is only surpassed by your partisan bullshit.

And BTW, if points are so meaningless to you, why did you feel it necessary to have multiple pseudonyms. Oh yeah, that's right you wanted to curb vitriolic speech. I forgot that laughable excuse.

~Odin~

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

It's kind of crazy to be constantly promoting progressive candidates, while admitting that it is "tough" to find any of them coming out of the two parties that have have taken "bribes" and have failed us so miserably....., and who most of us have so much disdain for. Can you at least admit that the overwhelming majority of these candidates will come from third parties??

As long as we maintain the righteous belief that this movement is about JUSTICE, about right vs wrong...not about left vs. right..I definitely believe that we can attract those people in the middle-right to our side, and i also believe that we need them on our side, if we are to be victorious. To take your left/right path, we just start alienating huge swaths of people from the start. Remember these people are victims of the corrupt MSM as many of us were, and who still have not learned to 'think' beyond catch phrases in many cases. It may take a mini-epiphany for them to come around, as it did for some of the Con Ed workers who were locked out (what's going on with that, anything new?), but as a natural by-product of this approach which I do not consider a nuance, many people will become more progressive in their way of thinking.

As i have said before, from my many years of arguing politics from a left vs. right paradigm, I have found that what happens is, everyone just ''digs in their heels,' and you get nowhere. But when you start off with, 'both parties are corrupt, and our government does not answer to people's interests, but instead to corp and banking interests', then it is like taking the 'wind out of their sails,' and you find there is much that you can agree on. Of course there are legitimate differences with Americans on the left and right, but for the most party, they are minor compared to the 'big picture,' and we can set at least some of those differences aside, until we get a representative democracy/republic. Remember those differences are what the corrupt establishment encouraged, and enabled them to run rough-shod over our lives. While we argued social issues, they were fleecing us in a multitude of ways.

~Odin~

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

OK, where the hell are these "pro 99% progressives you have been promoting since day 1?" There certainly are very few in the dem party, and for sure Obama isn't one of them. And anyone who voted repub on here would have to be out of his gourd.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I had a repub senator request to follow me on twitter today. U think they been studying the forum to get tips on what to say to the public(?) - was that behind mittens about face ( um - I mean finding a face? ) ?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Etch-a Sketchy!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The talking heads suggest Romney talk of Peace and non confrontational posture was an attempt to be attractive to women.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well pretty much stepping away from anything he has said in the last year would be attractive.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"Iraq's WMD program is a threat to the USA"

Who said this?

Was it Bush, Cheney, the Clintons, or Biden?

It was all 5

Not talking about Al Qaeda doesn't end the war on terror. Not bombing a bunch of countries with drones and pulling out ALL troops and the thousands of mercs ends the war on terror.

6 years of scheduled war under Obama is nothing to praise. It was 7 years of war under Bush. All of it is still bullshit.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

You can talk about "fear mongering" all you want, but the question is: Why do we involve ourselves in these wars? The answer is, because both parties answer to big monied interests, and right at the top of that inhumane, corrupt heap is the MID. Then, considering we are going up against an entrenched, iniquitous political system where few people could name more than a handful of good representatives that are 'for the people,' why do you insist on promoting partisan politics on here? This system needs to be 'rocked,' not legitimized.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Fuckin-A

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

No, you are not promoting "awareness," rather you are promoting bull-shit in trying to get people to believe the foolish notion that if we somehow suddenly find people in the dem party that are altruistic to what most of us want, we will then enter into the 'promised land.'

"Fear mongering" is just a tool that has been used to get us where we are at. It is the corrupt two party system, and the people that are in it that are the REAL problem, but you just like to get off on these little tangents to obfuscate the issue. That way you can continue on with your partisan BS.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

fear mongering propaganda is no tangent! Anti communist, red scare rhetoric was at the root of much proxy wars during the cold war.

Propaganda is ALWAYS the 1st step to war! EVERY war!. And must be recognized and denounced if are to end the current 'war on terror'.

So my anti war posts frequently focus on this root cause. It is right and necessary.

We can agree on the corruption of the party duopoloy and the great change we must agitate for. 3rd party access! yeah! new system, ground up, horizontal, direct democracy.

I'm with that!!

I am also for denouncing & ending the fear mongering propaganda that has been used since the 9/11 attacks were exploited to scare the shit out of the American people so that we would acquiesce to war & rights violations.

Are you minimizing the obvious damage of fear mongering propaganda because it has been republicans doing it.?

I suppose it can't be easy for you to hear how your party is creating such horror and abuse around the world.

Peace Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, it has been the repubs doing it "fear mongering," and it is the dems who have picked up the baton, and have been running with it. Both parties answer to special interests, hence both parties are corrupt.

"I suppose it can't be easy for you to hear how your party is creating such horror and abuse around the world." Yes...I was waiting for you to pull that accusation out of your little lackey-like repertoire of tricks.

You are a partisan ass

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"ass"? name calling just betrays the impotence of your arguments.

If you can't discuss in a civil way you should be an adult. admit your failure, and of course refrain from the schoolyard bullying tactic of your candidate Romney.

If you can offer examples of Dems spewing the fear mongering propaganda that fuels the military actions & rights violations without the insults I would be willing to listen.

Otherwise I don't care to converse with another immature, ignorant partisan.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

"Ass," yeah i couldn't help myself after your stupid, erroneous accusation, but I know that is one of your tactics when YOU can't back up your arguments with facts or reason.

As we sit here in the comforts of our homes tapping away on our LTs, people all over North Africa, and the Middle East are living in fear of drone attacks from the President that you have continually defended. Are you listening to this stupid debate now, and do you believe either of them? Tell me how i could possibly be a partisan. I think that you are not, and have not for a long time engaged in clear thinking.

I suggest if you do not want to converse with an"immature, ignorant partisan," you should do some self examination, and not look in the mirror.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Attacking me is meaningless. don't you realize that.?

Why can't you be respectful?. Do you think you can change my mind by bullying me.? That does not work in a virtual world. Or do you come here to get a thrill by lifting yourself up by putting people down.

You have nothing but irrelevant insults, no substance.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

I know your history on here well. You should practice what you preach. Are you now devolving into your 'victim' mode?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I hope you are around many, many tomorrows!

My preference is that you refrain from personal attacks, & telling me how to vote or what position is OWS approved.

If we can discuss important issues in a civil way & stick to thetruth we serve the greater community here.

If not we are just stroking our egos.

Peace,

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

"I hope you are around many many tomorrows." Errr, I didn't mean being alive, just 'banned,' for the umpteenth time lol, but then you never know. Each day we are here is precious so, if sincere, Thanks. However, if i am 'here,' you can count on me being a thorn in your side,' if you continue your partisan BS.

I never have liked being 'labeled' anything as i go with my conscience, but I especially don't like the condescending way that you come on to people which includes labeling them something that they are not. So it is my "preference" that you refrain from doing so. I have expended too much shoe leather, and time in this movement to be considered anything, but altruistic to it.

As you know by now though, i have no problem answering 'fire with fire,' for lack of a better phrase.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have read all my life. Not just recently as a result of actions by this forum. Thanks for the advice.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nothing is irreparable.

But next is you educating me on "the faliures of the liberal class". Please.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

I respectfully suggest that you spend less time posting on here, and more time reading, as I have done during my many bans on here. lol See my previous comment to you.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I do not push particular candidates!!

Why do you keep bringing up the 2 parties.? I don't like discussing the 2 parties.

Both parties are corrupt w/ money. Support Move to Amend!

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

OK, we can agree on the two parties being irreparably corrupt, right? Let's move on. What's next?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just trying to convince you to stop personally attacking me.

I don't feel like a victim.

I feel strong and confident!

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

OK then, sleep well, and we will go at it tomorrow again if i am still around.

~Odin~

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

Once more, you should practice what you preach. You victimize yourself. I have nothing to do with it. What is so dishonest about asking; Where are all the progressives in the corrupt repub, or dem party that we should support?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

No, nothing threatening meant, quite the contrary in fact, by my sign-off with you last night. This is a forum where lively exchanges take place, and i expect ours to continue. You are not reverting to your 'victim' mode again, are you? it is cute, but disingenuous.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Fear mongering is a problem.

I'm saying both R's and D's have done that. Both Bush and Obama have told me about the boogeymen in caves that want to kill me.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I do denounce. I have tons of posts on this forum denouncing war.

Prime example is my recent criticism for the CIA wanting to expand it's drone program into North Africa.

Another is my criticism for the 28,000 hired mercenaries and 68,000 troops still in Afghanistan which you praised as reduction. Still being in Afghanistan is not only warmongering... but it's actual WAR

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

None of these examples have anything to do with fear mongering propaganda, war on terror rhetoric.

I am against the CIA drone expansion, I am against merc use. I AGREE with you!!.

you pretend I am against you because you can't admit that the repubs areat the center of this root/fuel of all this military actions we are against.

If you are truly against the drone strikes and merc use, you would be denouncing the fear mongering propaganda that is being used to scare the shit out of Americans so that they support or accept these actions.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think it is the people behind both the republicans and democrats who are responsible for fear mongering propaganda, that is, the financial oligarchy. They are the ones who own the media in which such propaganda is propagated.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So, while the "dems ain't" spewing fear, the oligarchs which really run things regardless of what either party does or doesn't say, continue the military build up through covert actions as well as hate mongering in the media.

If you want to solve the problem you have to solve it at the source. Cheering for one side or the other of some metaphorical "team" isn't going to do it.

The only thing which really matters is a bankruptcy reorganization, Glass Steagall to be exact, which would eliminate the phony money used by the oligarchs to finance war, followed by a New Deal style economic recovery.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Whether or not Obama is peace loving as you say, he hasn't gotten the job done, so he doesn't deserve to be president, nor does Romney if he isn't willing to do the job as well. This isn't my way, its the way normal organizations function.

Roosevelt did a complete bankruptcy reorganization in the first two weeks of his presidency. He had to fight a lot of people to accomplish this, and he loved to engage in such fights. This is exactly the kind of leadership we need today, and there should be no tolerance or excuses for anything otherwise.

If we don't do these things, either the economy will continue collapsing or continued war mongering will lead to WWIII. We've seen this all before, except this time we have a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons to destroy most of the world. These are the realities that you face today. Its not about having it my way.

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I don't agree with everything Obama has done (or not done) but I think it is an unfair comparison. Sure FDR had his enemies but I think people were generally more loyal and cooperative once someone got in office. I doubt he had the insanely obstinate congress to deal with that Obama has. Obama has something else to deal with that FDR didn't- mass delusion. The capture and indoctrination of peoples' minds to an extent that probably hasn't happened since Hitler. That is why this race is so close. It's like the more opportunities people in the red states have to educate themselves about candidates, and the more they are shat on, the more ignorant they get- why is that? Whatever Obama HAS done or attempted to do, it will probably never be appreciated in his lifetime. But if Mitt Romney gets in office, I guarantee you it will be appreciated.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

From what I've heard, Obama has never done or said anything in support of Glass Steagall.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

Well put arturo.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

shows a bit more of your lack of intelligence - explain your comment about how the usa currency will collapse - oh, i forgot - you can't since you do not understand much about real world economics - make pronouncements and then when you can't back them up change the subject - name call do anything to deflect - sound familiar

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You don't deserve an explanation. All that you deserve is pity.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

no ability to answer - shocking - currency collapse - ha. you have no credibility - you cannot admit that your argument does not hold water - the worst kind of religious fanatic

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Gibberish, as usual.

[-] -1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

still waiting for a reply to the collapsing currency comment - keep at ti with vq - he is right about at your level - also a rentier it seems - still pushing the same line even though it has been shown to be false? i believe it is called a religious argument.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The consistent irrelevancy of your comments is highly impressive.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

i have to go to work today - anything you would like to say about that? you two deserve each other - a couple fo knuckle heads - nothing more disturbing than a dumb man who thinks he is smart

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Natch. I don't need a judge. My words are backed up by the truth, and stand with civil discussion.

Are you familiar with these concepts.?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Your words are backed up by propaganda.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The way in which you constantly make personal attacks instead of discussing anything relevant, suggests that you are just bitter about your own life and want to vent your resentments against others. It must be frustrating for you.

[-] 0 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

no one was speaking to you but it is nice of you to stand up for your fellow rentier

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I will atone when you become my judge!

LOL!

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

no need for a judge - your words speak for themsleves

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

no one was speaking to you but it is nice of you to stand up for your fellow rentier

  • The fact that no one was speaking to you never stopped you from butting in and muttering your nonsense.
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I worked for 25 years. Good luck in all your good efforts.

"knuckleheads"? Name calling betrays the impotence of your arguments.

"work" on that. LOL.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

i have no argument and you have made a romney like statement that shows your thinking - live with it and atone for it instead of trying to ignore it the way most of the rentier class does

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I denounce the drones strikes because they are illegal and kill civilians. I denounce the people who say they are necessary and call them murderers. I also point out how the drone strikes are not solving any problems and are actually making things worse.

If you think that means I'm not "truly against the drone strikes" then you are a moron.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Do you think I denounce the drone strikes or do you think I truly don't.

I said if you think I do not then you are a moron. So if you think I do denounce them then you are not a moron on this issue.

If you want I could just say your previous comment was a bunch of malarkey.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You obviously denounce anything Obama does including the drone strikes & the Military action in Libya, sanctions & surrounding Iran, signing indef detention.

I question your seriousness because you never mention the fear mongering propaganda that MUST be ended to end all these things. And I submit you ignore this critical root because it is republicans who are uniquely guilty of the war on terror rhetoric.

You appear to only criticize one politician for all this. So I believe you are transparently partisan.

Your personal attacks simply confirm that assessment because it shows the impotence of your arguments.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

LOL

I criticize many politicians. In comments on this very page I listed 5 politicians specifically who said Iraq had WMD's... Bush, Cheney, Clintons, and Biden.... notice the one name not listed in regards to that was Obama.

But you're damn right I criticize Obama for drone strikes and indefinite detention laws. Proud of it. I criticize all those who voted for it or support it. Just 2 weeks ago I protested and criticized 3 politicians... 1 specifically in regards to her effort to push for war in Iran.

If you bothered to read any of my posts you'd know I've been posting against HR 4310 which contains policies to prepare for war against Iran... in which I also say the propaganda about Iran is a lie.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I found the name for you.

The republican who wrote the Iran war mongering H res 568 was Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Why don't ever mention that?

Why do you never mention repub responsibility in these war mongering actions.

Transparent republican partisanship?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A similar bill in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has 74 co-sponsors but has yet to be introduced to the floor.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why haven't you mentioned that of the 120 votes against your repub written iran war mongering def budget 104 were democrats.!

Aren't they the heroes?

And of the 299 for it 222 were republicans.

Isn't that meaningful? You left that out like you left out the Iran war mongering language was written by your republicans.

Why Trev? Why do you always cover up for your republicans?

Transparent republican partisanship?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"you told me Obama had to sign no matter what and it wasn't his fault he had to sign it."

I told you no such thing about last years indef det military budget bill. That's you lying about me again. What I have said is : I'm against indef det. and profoundly disappointed Pres Obama in and signed that conservative policy. I have said that Pres Obama has never used the indef detention authority,. That repubs created the policy in 2002, wrote the law (P King) in 2011, and repubs are the only ones to ever have used it. I also told you that Pres Obama has eliminated more than half the indef detention cases that your boy bush left us.

So you said Carl Levin sponsored HR 4310 in the Senate I pointed out your mistake. That don't mean I ain't looked in on this. Of Course I did. Long ago.

And how ridiculous are you to suggest that somehow the chairman of the Senate Armed services committee sponsoring the Defense budget bill means something other than that is how it is always done.

No individual lawmaker agrees with everything in that humungous bill. Carl Levin probably doesn't either.

I'm less interested in the obscure right wing war mongering language you site regarding war in Iran as I am in the effort to ratchet down the right wing war mongering over Iran, and pushing diplomacy instead of republican efforts to invade.

Pres Obama has resisted successfully that right wing war mongering pressure to invade, And now Pres Obama will engage in talks to resolve any problems we have between our countries and smoke you right wing wackos!

LMFAO!!!!

So you say the talks are meaningless to you.? Your more concerned with the obscure right wing nonsense added to the defense bill?

We should call that republican nonsense just what it is. Right wing war mongering. And ignore it.

Like we should ignore your partisan anti obama one sided campaign attacks that in this case somehow left out that repubs wrote the Iran war language they buried in the defense budget.

What a surprise! LOL

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Only an Obama campaigner looks at posts like that sees a threat.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So Sen Carl Levin is the sponsor of House Resolution 4310. huh?

Please. You do realize it is called something else in the Senate right? Are you kidding?

Do you know what you are talkin about or are you just makin things up. LOL.

I'm against invading Iran I support any diplomatic efforts to prevent that.

People who ridicule talks (like you) are simply adding to the fear mongering. But I understand you can nevergive Pres Obama any proper respect or credit because your only goal appears to be attacking, bashing, Pres Obama.

Let's watch the fear mongerers reaction to the talks with Iran. How much you wanna bet they will ridicule and discourage, and bash the effort.?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's the National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2013

In the House it's HR 4310 in the Senate it's S.3254

Same bill... they pass every year... the National Defense Authorization Act. It's that bill that last year you told me Obama had to sign no matter what and it wasn't his fault he had to sign it. The bill that had indefinite detention provisions.

In the senate sponsored by Carl Levin - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254

You have continually made yourself foolish on calling me out on things I am right about without actually looking into it yourself.

You have failed to research a bill where people are telling you it contains homophobic/prejudice legislation and prepares for a war.

I've tried telling you about this bill so many times and you have never once actually looked into it?

Also I never criticized negotiations with iran. I just said everything they've feared you into about Iran is lying propaganda. There is no WMD program and they are not a threat to us. There wasn't WMD's in Iraq, which you of course know now. They're lying about iran. But hey negotiate away. I'm just telling you the alleged WMD program is a lie.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

In regards to HR 4310, Republican Howard McKeon is the sponsor in the House and Democrat Carl Levin is the sponsor in the senate.

Talks with iran about what? The WMD program that doesn't exist? Personally I hope they go well. But so far all the fearmongering about the "nuclear" Iran is just lies and bullshit. But I hope the talks go well. The last thing I want is another war based on lies.

Arturo posted on the Iranian talks as did someone else on the forum. I didn't really feel the need to verbatim copy someone else's post. Arturo's post is actually where I first heard about the scheduled talk.

I didn't post on the 3rd party debates either because several other people already did. Even though it's something I'm really excited about. I don't need to verbatim post news stories.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Biden voted to go to war in Iraq along with a bunch of democrats and republicans. You can keep saying it's just republicans but I've read the voting records that clearly show it's both parties.

Even when some democrats started to allegedly disagree with the war in Iraq they were still voting with republicans to fund that war. Obama voted to fund the war in Iraq for example... and he continued it for 3 years after taking office instead of bringing an immediate end. As well as they all voted for Afghanistan and still support that war to this day.

Drone strikes.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah it's terrible. I agree.

The point is I'm talking about the fuel of all these military actions. of all the rights violations.

your comments are just the same old repeated criticizms, I agree.

Why don't you agree that propaganda has always been at the root of war.?

Why do you never address this critical element of our problems.?

Is it because you don't like me & my partisanship? Is it because you don't understand the concept of propaganda? Is it that you don't think propaganda matters? Or Is it that you can't criticize republicans who are still in office?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

But where does the propaganda come from?

The people behind the propaganda are the problem. People like Bush, Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Clintons, Biden, and Obama. These people have cult followers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whenever it rears it's ugly head it shouldbe identified and denounced.

I listed

Bachman, Peter King, Lynsey Graham. There are others.

Just consider that Pres Obama never says 'war on terror'. The dems recognize we must end the war on terror rhetoric ifwe want to convince the American people to support an end to dronestrikes, & a restoration of our rights.

You got examples of dem fear mongering war on terror rhetoric? I wanna see it.

What about the talks with Iran. YOU KNOW the right wing war mongers are against that right?

What do you have to say about that?

http://www.theledger.com/article/20121020/NEWS/121029928/1410?Title=Iran-U-S-To-Begin-Negotiations-on-Iranian-Nuclear-Program

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obama told me there were boogeymen in caves who want to kill me.

That's fear mongering. Bush told me the same story.

Obama doesn't say "War on terror." He says "We must stop terror."

Same thing

Just google "Obama war on terror" and watch him talk about how the terrorists threaten the world.

Republicans fearmonger... democrats do it too.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"boogeyman"? please that's a joke?

Not sayng "war on terror" is a conscious effort to ratchet down the rhetoric. That is why repubs and their leader Rush Limbaugh have criticized Obama for not saying it.

So no. saying we must stop terror is not the same as perpetuating the false war on terror (terror is a tactic, can't really war on it).

Sorry.

Anything else.

Vote against Obama, I don't care. but if your gonna be against war, be against the propaganda of war.

Care to comment on the list of propaganda I included? Orthe Iran nuclear talks?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Speaking of propaganda... do you still think Libya was about liberating the people?

Bombing civilians in the name of liberating civilians. Supporting rebels who committed the same human rights violations as Gaddafi.

They liberated those people like they did in Iraq.... sarcasm.

Never did anything to help the people of Congo.... Libya had nothing to do with helping people.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Cool!

changing the subject because you can't admit the repubs are the fear mongerers?

Vote against Obama, I don't care. but if your gonna be against war, be against the propaganda of war.

Care to comment on the list of propaganda I included? Or the Iran nuclear talks?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Repubs are fear mongers and warmongers. Never once disagreed on that.

I've just been saying both parties are responsible for these wars and both take part in propaganda and fear/warmongering.

Do you believe the propaganda about why we had to bomb the fuck out of Libya?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

In regards to you 1 min video.

I saw non black people as well as black prisoners. I saw cloth in a mouth but no "eating" as you claim. I heard arab talking but did not understand, I saw no images of the captors. I saw no evidence my govt is funding these captors.

Any torture is bad. I am against it. I do not hold Pres Obama responsible for every act of torture. Sorry that's you I guess.

Finally you're pushing a video put out by Russia Today? Aren't they the supporters of Libya & Syria's brutal dictators for 3 decades. Haven't they armed the Syrian Army who has now killed 30k innocent Syrian in the last year.

Is that who you are speaking for.?

Your video is just propaganda in put out by Russia in support of Russian interests and against the interests of the US.

Anything else.?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the drone strikes! In north africa as well.

What do you think about the Libyan people supporting American diplomatic efforts and our assassinated diplomats?

What do you think about them evicting the extremist militants from Benghazi?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What do you think about the government funding these people?

And I'm not talking about the people being tortured. The government funded the torturers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Isn't that over? We ain't occupying Libya are we? No more bombing.!

I'm always suspicious of the reasons (propaganda) of war. I kinda look at that as a European action. Didn't they do that bombing?. And wasn't it just a few weeks.

What I do believe is the thousands of Libyan civilians who marched in support of American diplomatic efforts and our diplomats who were assassinated on 9/11.

I believe they risked their lives when they marched against the extremist militants in Benghazi, Libya and evicted them from Benghazi.

So whatever false propaganda we heard, and whatever criticism you and repubs have of Pres Obama I would point to that amazing phenomenon as proof that the Libyan people support our efforts to support a moderate govt.

No? You must support the Libyan people evicting the extremist militants that killed our diplomats on the 9/11 anniversary right?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Libya was planned under the Bush admin and General Wesley Clark pointed that out in 2007.

Maybe you'll support those drones the CIA wants to bring into North Africa? Maybe there is more liberating to do?

Perpetual war fighting blow back.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Propaganda isn't the root cause of war. Propaganda is the justification for war.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"you can't have one without the other"

"War & fear"

"War & fear"

goes together like pizza and beer.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They were wrong when they said that (more than 12 years ago).

That is a good example of fear mongering. But it was the repubs who used it to illegally invade. over a decade ago!

And it is a great example of how dems fell into the repub trap of labeling them weak on defense to get some pro war comments out of dems.

That is a dem failure. Betraying anti war progressive principles again.

So I say we denounce that fear mongering when it happens (whatever party) You seem to resist acknowledging republican fear mongering propaganda. I listed current examples. Why don't you comment on that!

Give me one a little more current, This decade maybe!

Do you think it is good we are going to sit down with the Iranians regarding nuclear weapons.

What will the war mongers say?

http://www.theledger.com/article/20121020/NEWS/121029928/1410?Title=Iran-U-S-To-Begin-Negotiations-on-Iranian-Nuclear-Program

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

3 out of 4 people in the US thought invading Iraq a 2nd time was a good idea. Where are these people now?

[-] 2 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

I don't recall it that way.

I recall Bush, Powell, Cheney and the Sec of State Condi Rice, Building and selling the case Iraq was developing nuclear weapon ability, and people went along reluctantly, skeptically.

But once in we were all about support the troops.

Maybe you're correct on the war popularity. Not in my area of country. Seattle didn't jump for Bush's war of revenge on Sadam, to restore his neocons despise cause his dad didn't depose Sadam in 1st War on Iraq.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Very good. They were scared shit after the exploitation of the 9/1 attacks. Where are they now? Eventually, they woke up, recognized the false fear mongering propaganda, and turned against that war.

The same must happen regarding the wider 'war on terror'. We must call out the lies that al Qaeda is an existential threat. They ain't, And NEVER have been.

Just fear mongering propaganda.

I'm against the drone strikes. The problem here is that I have dared to say the truth about why we are here. I have pointed out the fuel of war, and who is spewing it.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

get off your high donkey and come to the middle ground

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

there ain't no middle ground, the world is round

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

haha yes you are right but we can agree on our differences and ignore them and work at what we are alike at

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Propaganda alwats comes 1st, and always must go 1st.

If we truly want to end the wars & rights violations we must identify & denounce the fear mongering.

I'm not on a high donkey. It is what it is!

I'm sure you can't discuss this without personal attacks, so you should refrain from responding.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

The democrats held congress through most of these times where was the limiting of government. Its the laziness of government that has gotten us in this issue

i can be civil can you?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well we should protest any govt actions we disagree with. Vote out the pols who do not represent your preferences.

What I'm saying is:

The fear mongering propaganda must be recognized, and denounced specifically whenever it rears it's ugly head.

Propaganda always comes 1st, and always must end 1st.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Also why have democrats always been a supporter of the draft

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/draf-j12.shtml

yes its from 2007 but its still shocking

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Beats me. Why?

Is that related to the fear mongering propaganda at the center of the roots of the war on terror, & right violations we are all against.?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

For one simple reason to control the poor

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dems support the draft to control the poor.?

Ok I'll bite.

How does the draft allow them to control the poor.?

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes it add an extra level of control.

poor are the ones affect by the draft the most. Looking at Vietnam who was drafted those who couldn't go to college.

It grants them more power the want to control us by having us rely on them for food and housing. We are fodder in their eyes.

also it was carter who made the modern draft and the reason why all males born after 1960 have to sign there lives away if the president so wishes

edit to clarify the hidden draft the selected service was signed into law by carter in 1980

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

??? What are you talking about? The draft started with the American Civil War. It ended in 1973.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes i know but are you signed up for the selected service which is a call of men when times are needed under direct order of the President

if thats not a draft then what is

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I didn't know there was still selective service. I was in the Navy from 79-82.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

o ok well that makes sense you served so you signed it with all the other forms

thank you for your service

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I was a sorry ass sailor. No sense in lying about it.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

im a from a family a sailors still you did what most dont even try to it

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Being told to carry a gun and kill people.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Lol. Not really. You could conceivably get drafted and wind up being a cook in Hooterville, Ky. Getting forced to wear a uniform and march around is getting drafted and who knows what that can lead to.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

True that. Ofcourse the whole carrying a gun and killing people is the thing most anti war people are against.

That is why I mentioned guns, as well as the fact that there would be far more draftees with guns than spoons.

No?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pres Carter didn't make the modern draft. There is no draft.

Do you know what you are talkin about?

And didn't Representative Rangel propose the draft during the Iraq war so that the rich wouldn't continue avoid fighting?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes i was forced to sign for the draft. I have a draft card that i had to sign for to get loans for school if i didn't sign for it i would be in jail. Also i must add only men have to sign up for this service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

so we should have a draft to avoid fighting seems really logical

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I also signed the selective service, and yet I was NOT drafted.

Where did you serve when you were drafted?

Do you understand what a draft is?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

the selected service is there for us to be called to duty if the president wishes this means we are signing are lives away. Why do we need to sign up if there is no draft.

i haven't served yet because i have not been called no one has been called since 1973 but we are in the system for when they wish to call us

yes i understand the law and the draft

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If theres war we can be called up.

Many don't like it but there it is. Protest against it.

How is that controlling you? And why are you attaching the selective service to Pres Carter?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

it was signed by him i like carter very smart man a good Nuclear Engineer but he signed it "On 2 July 1980, President Carter issued Presidential Proclamation 4771 and re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System."

The Selective Service System is a means by which the United States government maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription.

so yes we have a draft it sleeping but it still gathering individuals

Its not controlling me i know exactly what would happen if i was called i would be sent to the Engineering corps.

the point is you said republicans are the only ones that like war so why did Nixon get rid of the draft if he a Republican. Then seven years later Carter a Democratic reinstate it?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That little town in Ohio and the rst of the US WOULD not exist without the greatest city on earth (NYC)

Because we built this country.!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Thanks troll

Do you wear tin foil on your head too

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No sob story. Just straightening out your very shallow definition of measuring people.

This whole Country (Ohio & all it's towns) owes NYC a debt of gratitude and would not exist without this greatest city on earth!

Do your research, can't change history!

Cities rules (most Americans now live in cities) Sub Urbans drool!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

No im not accepting that as an answer what does NY do for the rest of the country? Why cant that little town in Ohio exist with out NY? tell me

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

NIxon got rid of it because of pressure by the people and a realization that they could maintain a large enough army with only volunteers (if they create enough incentives for poor people) Save the wealthy repub constituents the headache of scheming to avoid the draft.

Pres Carter instituted selective service I suppose to be ready in case we need to institute a draft. Which we don't have now.

If this 40 year old data is the best you can do as evidence that dems are war mongers I say try again.

I am not impressed,. Anything else.?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Nixon did get a lot of pressure it was a movement of people that decided that they didn't want the draft or the war. It was a powerful movement something that this has yet to do, do to people pushing political agendas instead of ideas.

We do have a draft it is inactive but it is established non the less

Its completely relevant since you posted about a George McGovern a man from the times who lost to Nixon 49-1 out of states that is.

Just because the data is 30 years old doesn't mean for example the component of gravity was found 1665 but is still relevant as all data is in today's world we must look at the past the age of the data and see its true relevance to situations otherwise we will repeat the actions over and over.

Im guessing you weren't that good at history to understand this important tome of why we study history

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Done? You been beaten likean old Salvation Army drum!

"Smokin!" "Somebody stop me!"

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Done? You been beaten likean old Salvation Army drum!

"Smokin!" "Somebody stop me!"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaaaah Ha ha ha ha! "Troll"? "Tin foil"? Insults? You lose! Loser!

Are you suggesting I am talkin about conspiracy theories with your tin foil insult?

I guess you've been flustered. Vexed. 'cause I ain't done that.

'sok. I understand. You can't handle the truth.

LMFAO!

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

The truth what truth have you ever stated ever ill start with some you may be able to understand

2+2 = ?

Are apples red Or blue

well work up once your skill level reached normal may take a few year

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Queens ain't Brooklyn! Queens is soft! I wasn't giving you a sob story. Just educating you on the proper way to measure people. Notby their cars. but how the live & treat others.

New York built this country. You and the small town in Ohio would not exist without us. And today NY gives more to the govt for the bloodsucking red states (who take more) than we take. And if you didn't NY to sell to you'de be in real trouble.

And remember City living is the better way for humans to live. Suburban/rural living is very land consuming. and wasteful.

So there.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

O you New Yorkers and the Burroughs rivalry Brooklyn is where you move to raise a family.You were giving me a sob story and i called your bluff.

Really why wouldn't that town in Ohio not exist i will require facts and sources for this explanation or I'm calling the bull shit train on you

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I grew up in the projects of brooklyn on welfare, single mom & a host of other tragic problems. Worked hard and succeeded well enough to leave the workforce at 41 yrs old to raise my daughter.

WTF does driving have to do with anything? What a bazaar measure. Struggle and perseverance. hard work and self reliance. Success through adversity is the measure. How we treat each other through that difficulty is a good measure. But whether you have a hemy or a v8 is meaningless.

Is that your measure? Seems kinda materialistic and fake to me.

I keep it real. Cause I've been through IT. I think you've had it easy. I think you must be soft if driving is your measure.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

So did my dad who is from Queens and has a better one than that so your sob story is like water splashing on the rocks it has no effect on this heart.

the driving thing is a can opener. You're a New Yorker my family is from there so i can say this in confidence New Yorkers dont live like the rest of Americans do we live different lives and have different needs. Your perception of what good for America wont fit the farm towns of Ohio or the hills of Colorado.You live in a city that is solely reliant on the actual workers of this nation. With out us you would starve with out you we would live better.

Yeah tell me i had it easy been working since i was 12 so i must not know the meaning of hard work. The callus on my hands and the mind i have crafted is no easy work. Retiring at 41 good job but i will work till the day i die because I'm from a family that works for a living.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I live in the real world. You are just projecting your wishes on me.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no you live in a false reality you dont know the problems of the everyday man you said so yourself you never driven

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"fake life"? wtf does that mean?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

the fact that you live in a dream world where everything is fake

also bananas

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaaaah haha ha. What a joke.

You're reaching.

repubs want to have a McCarthey like witch hunt for muslim terrorists in govt. Any dems doin' that wacky fear mongering shit?

Repub right wing wackos have been pressuring an invasion of Iraq, Pres Obama resisted and is planning talks.

Lindsey Graham, Sean (in)sanity, Peter King & repub leader Rush have been criticizing the dems for never saying 'war on terror'.

This is current examples of repub fear mongering. Dems ain't doin this.

Sorry.

Try again.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

you ignorant to ignore facts

going drink your punch and enjoy you fake life

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by andover4 (-33) 2 years ago

end the war on terror? the terrorists didnt get the memo, and have no interest in stopping the murder of those who do not adhere to islam.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8&feature=related

Clinton Kerry and Gore are in those videos

also you said it yourself they support the draft " Representative Rangel propose the draft during the Iraq war" but that was in 2003 so if you can reference that far back so can i

But i got one more recent http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/draf-j12.shtml

then the mercenaries presently in Iraq which more joined this summer

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/obama-iraq-eternal/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/10/mercenaries-in-iraq-to-take-over-soldiers-jobs.html

http://www.tehrantimes.com/middle-east/93493-blackwater-mercenaries-to-return-to-iraq

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Hear, hear.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 4 months ago

George knew best

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Or if you ACTUALLY denounced war you would just vote for someone who opposes the drone strikes and opposes the Afghanistan war... someone who doesn't want to bomb any countries in 2013.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sure vote how you want to.

I never tell people to vote for Obama, or against Romney.

I would encourage all anti war people to elect peace loving progressives.

I also KNOW we must do something about the fear mongering propaganda of the war on terror.

So vote against drone bombers, and also vote against fear mongering politicians.

No?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Stick to that! I can agree to that.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Too bad. we almost had an agreement.

I want to get people to vote against Obama, Romney and the entire status quo.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

On my facebook page I have a picture I made with Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and a picture of Hitler.

Under the republicans pictured it says "We believe in racial profiling, the muslims are the enemy." and under Hitler it said "I believed in racial profiling, the jews were the enemy."

The only post I think I have on OWS in regards to Bachmann is a joke that says "the republican candidates are so fucking stupid this year it seems like it has to be a conspiracy theory to get Obama re-elected lol"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Replace fear mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

that's exactly how I'm voting. I'm also voting to replace fear mongering democrats too. You really need to stop acting like I am not doing these things. You constantly call me a republican because of my posts in regards to wars and drone strikes.... it's ridiculous that you do this.

How I'm voting on the federal level

Jill Stein for president (Green Party) to replace Obama - Jill has said "End these wars now!"

John Ewing for congress (D) to replace Lee Terry (R) ... John has said "Afghanistan needs to end Yesterday."

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Still sticking to the "republican plant" theory?

Let me know how your conspiracy theory about me turns out.

[-] 1 points by MonsieurAvery (14) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

There have been plenty of Anti-War candidates before George McGovern, and there will be plenty in the future. Jill Stein is one of them currently. Obama is not one of them.

Even Obama admits he will not cut the military budget but merely keep it where it is. One can't blame the Democrats for being status quo on the military: this is simply the fear mongering system they are playing ball in. However, the Democrats are not the solution.

Honestly, I think it might be better that Obama not get reelected. If we steadily moved deeper into these horrible policies of the Republicans, maybe in 20 years we could have a real change in policy.

Whoever gets elected, however, it won't change our worlds. We still have our lives outside of politics.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by MonsieurAvery (14) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Yeah. What's the difference?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

One party is the war mongers the other is unraveling the right wing war on terror.

Thats the difference.

[-] 1 points by MonsieurAvery (14) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

War on Terror still exists.

At least Jill Stein advocates an end to conflicts. Obama just says "Maybe just maybe in the near future if everyone can agree and help me get elected again..."

Anyone who sells out like that is not a confident individual, is not a leader, and is not worth my vote.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Jill Stein can never be elected. I'm Sorry. It's a fantasy. Pres Obama can be And IS ending the war on terror. Romney is a right wing war monger.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So, I have to ask, did McGovern not get elected because of some conspiracy, or is the romanticism of war part of the American way?

I don't believe an anti war candidate will ever get elected as long as the people believe in just wars. As long as people can honestly differentiate the soldiers from their actions, there will always be people willing to die for the admiration of their nation's people.

Anyone who can say I don't support the war but support the troops contribute to our never ending wars. People will do a lot to be admired, and our admiration for soldiers contributes to the war effort.

I believe Mcgovern did not get elected, not because of the two parties, but because the people find our wars justifiable and the ones who fight them honorable.

The end of the draft made war democratic, and those who complain about the war are complaining about the will of the people. You can't fight a war without soldiers, and as long as there are soldiers there will be wars.

I am anti war. I choose not to fight. Until all individuals can say this, there will be war, no matter who is governing us.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't think soldiers decide, or control anything about war. And there will always be soldiers to fight wars so I don't see how that will ever happen. Millions of people are involved.

There ARE fewer people involved in whipping up war talk, those people at the center of the war mongering/fear mongering are the ones to identify & denounce. In '72 we had been steeped in anti communist, red scare fear mongering for 2 decades. Obviously, trying to fight that was a difficult if not impossible effort.

So that would seem to have doomed McGovern. Although he might have succeeded since the country was also disgusted with the war and the anti communist fear monfering was getting tiresome.

Of course if we are discussing why McGovern was defeated we must mention republican cheating. Nixon was involved with that little Watergate thing (among other schemes) in an effort to cheat his way to a win.

So I guess it is a bit complicated. Not so cut and dry.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You're right about it not being as simple as I suggest. I guess the point I want to make is the only just warriors are the ones that don't have to jump on a boat or plane and travel further than Hawaii. Can you really call any of our foreign incursions just? Maybe they could be seen as self interested and diplomatically expedient, but not just. Did we go to war with the family of the cat who shot up that theater in Colorado? No we didn't. Why? Because they had nothing we coveted.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well the theater massacre is kinda small scale in this regard. And of course we did capture the guy. Perhaps questioning our failure to war on easy access to guns is a valid question but we know how that goes in America.! "I loves ma guns, I loves ma guns"

In terms of real wars I can't say really if we've had a just war People always point to WWII, so I guess I could say that.

I do support just, righteous use of military to protect innocent people from brutal dictators. i won't decide what is just, but I know it can happen.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Posts this and then loves Hagel.

What a fraud.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never said I love Hagel. That's you blatantly lying again. Cause you are a dishonest piece of shit.

I like that your right wing neocon war mongers are against Hagel.

And that is it!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Way before OWS and the birth of most of it's "members," we had the 60s-70s and a massive protest movement against the autocratic, Right Wing, MIC, System. And a great leader in (D) Senator George McGovern, for which Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, among others, worked. The movement and the Democratic Party were united in opposition to (R) POTUS Richard Nixon, but were fractured and sabotaged going into the 1972 election, and McGovern lost. Two years later, Nixon resigned in disgrace for various acts of treason, including the sabotage of the Democratic Party, known as the Watergate Scandal. Many of Nixon's men, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, went on to perpetrate in other RepubliCon regimes, Raygun, Bush and W's. McGovern went on to write books, like What it "Means to be a Democrat," and endorse (D) POTUS candidates like Barack Obama.

McGovern was a great American, liberal/progressive, and we were all cheated by his sabotaged loss of the presidency, but he was not perfect. Let's not let the lessons of this great man's life and our political history be forgotten... or go unheeded.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said.

We should all remember his anti war strength against popular opinion and the powers that be.

RIP Sen George McGovern.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Anti-poverty, anti-war, environmentalist, anti-hunger... humanitarian, liberal, progressive, Democrat.

Who endorsed President Obama!

And who lost partially because he was considered by the peace-utopians as party to the "war system" as a Dem. Sound familiar?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It does. Todays dems have move away from McGoverns superior anti war stand out of necessity to counter the highly effective "weak on defense" mantra that repubs have used to defeat dems in elections.

Mcgovern was such a change because Johnson was a major Hawk and created a disaster in Viet Nam. Making Mcgoverns position so surprising and courageous.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

No Dems haven't moved away from McGovern's anti-war stances, in fact a majority have joined him. Dems have been forced to accommodated a derelict electorate and a rabid right wing RepubliCon party that has become a war and riches cult and a RW media that doesn't report the true state of the union. The "'weak on defense'" mantra that repubs have used" becomes more important ~ to stay in office to do something about it ~ than to appease bitchy no-war at any cost utopians who don't even bother to fucking VOTE anyway!

RE LBJ: See the various docs on LBJ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/lbj/ ; http://video.pbs.org/video/1049331248/ ; etc....) the poor mother fucker got a major bum wrap!!
He considered Vietnam (which he also inherited) an annoying nuisance, he merely wanted to swat it away so he could work on his "Great Society," his own version of FDR's New Deal.

There was no President more dedicated to the People of the United States of America, and who enjoyed kicking FASCIST RepubliCon ass MORE than LBJ!!!

Gee, I wonder how he got smeared?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok. I'll buy all that.

You make excellent points.

Stay strong. Keep fighting. You ain't alone.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Do these asinine Unicorn Chasers think that any idealistic Dem signs up for a mess like this (above)? And do the "TMs" even stop to consider this for one second? If Dems did what "they" wanted, the Dems wouldn't last one term! Oh that's right! That's what Cons want! "They" are Con plants!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

TM pretends to be anti war but he is transparently anti Obama. I enjoy smokin his sorry partisan ass.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Afraid you're right

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Way to insult the anti-war movement as usual. You establishment hacks are all the same.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"insult the anti war movement"? When did one partisan anti Obama plant become the anti war movement.?

You think too highly of one guy who spews lies and fear. And never criticizes the roots or the main party behind all our military adventures and rights violations.

Your republicans are the problem!! You and your friend always give them a pass!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Get back on your unicycle and insult the working class again.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Insults cause you got nothing positive of any value.

How do you think we need to modify our.......... tax policy?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Why wouldnt they last a term? The vast majority of the country wants the wars to end. Even a lot on the right.

Being anti war is what the people want. Its just hte establishment doesnt. So basically Dems and Reps side with the money that put them in office, rather than the people.

Thats the system. Good luck getting change out of that. Better get ready to open your wallet.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

He also enjoyed sending thousands of kids to death in war based on a lie, to fight communism (allegedly) only to have Clinton and the D/R later decide that communism is not only ok, but we should ship all of our factories over there and profit from it (GATT).

This entire system is a lie. Has been for a long time. Stop reacting, start campaigning, start working for change.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Proud member of the Democratic Party!

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 4 months ago

Peace is the only way

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And we should be proud of him and especially is unashamed anti war stand.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Of course!

Try to find that stand in the GOP Platform.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The GOP has been the war mongering party for 40 years and have effectively used dem peace stance to defeat them in elections & move dems to theright on the issues ofwar.

Repubs have exploited the 9/11 attacks and still use fear mongering propaganda to artificially raise up the threat of al Qaeda so they can perpetuate thewar on terror.

The regular repub plants are gangin up on me over this for the last few days.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

You really have to be stupid or lying not to see the VAST and DANGEROUS differences of the GOP.

I see the gang banging, and I don't think it's all "regular repub plants". Irregulars, too.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok. Whoever it is. No one is challenging their partisanship. So I guess they feel empowered.

[-] -1 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

you are not allowed!

[-] -2 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

I always thought McGovern a fool. He campaigned pretty much only in the New England states. I doubt he was surprised he lost in a landslide. He wasn't really trying to win. That's why I've always questioned how anti war he was.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I just a photo of him with his Texas campaign worker. Bill Clinton. Last time I checked Texas was not in the northeast.

And why did you question his anti war stance? Because you didn't think he was trying to win?

Explain that please.

[-] -1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

I question it because he didn't really fight for the election. Losing a landslide to Nixon proves it. I didn't say that he campaigned only in New England. Just mostly.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I thought the repubs cheated (as always).

You ever here of watergate?

[-] -1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

That was why Nixon won? Really?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Maybe you are unfamiliar with tricky dick and the (dem campaign office) watergate crime.

You know Nixon was forced to resign after that bit of cheating.

[-] -1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

Yes. I know all that. So you do say watergate was why McGovern lost the election by a landslide?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think the cheating (which the watergate breakin was just a part of) played a big part.

Certainly not because McGovern wasn't really trying. That's ridiculous.

[+] -4 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

So their should be no war on terror?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Let's start with a war on greed, starting with the top 1%.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Of course not. How can you have a war on a tactic?

We can never stop every terrorist act. We would be at war forever, No one wants to be at war forever.

[-] -1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

I see. So we should sit back and only react to attacks?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No. I didn't say that. That's you making things up.

You wanna have war forever.?

[-] -1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

You aren't making sense. Okay, what do you propose to put an end to terrorists killing Americans?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

So terrorists killing Americans is making them more important than they really are is bad. Check. Does that include when they sodomize them before they strangle them? Or is that legitimizing THEM?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 2 years ago

While I agree with some of what you say I have a question: who are the "death peddling extremists"?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the various al Qeada orgs, Taliban, the several new north african groups not aligned with al qeada but using the same tactics, basically the religious extremist wackos bombing innocent people.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Would you consider all the mob bombings as terrorist acts?