Forum Post: We need to change the republican party
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 7:01 p.m. EST by Recycleman
(102)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If we are to make changes that count it will have to be with both parties. We can be represented by any candidate. If we can get and prove that we have enough votes they will bow down and listen. They can only act like greedy grinchs if they can stay in office. We have to be a special interest group with enough votes to win. Then we will win.
That is what makes America the great country it is.
That is what the world sees about us.
Even with all the racial issues. Obama is the president.
His ability to get elected is the proof we are the greatest.
I'm biased becouse the last 6 years I have been working in 3rd world countries. They all say that is what makes America great. Not that you can get succeed. That anyone can succeed.
Newt is coming !
Wake the fuck up! The "Republican/Democrat" duality is a dinosaur...it's over, and it has been over for decades. The real power struggle is between the Plutocratic elite, and the 99%. This struggle cannot be "fixed" or settled by the current system. Nothing short of bloodless or bloody revolution will fix it.
One thing for certain is that all of us Americans must stand together or else our Country will never heal. Right now are Country is severely divided
yeah, into those with a future, and those without.
The thing that makes america great to americans is hte media machine.
The ability to pump messages straight into people's homes is so powerful, we cant even grasp it.
The money is what makes america great. The money came from nuking the shit outta Japan. End of story.
Well we had to nuke Japan, we were at war and had to save lives by ending it.
Right, and how did that war begin?
They bombed Pearl Harbor, invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island
Right, and why did they bomb pearl harbor? What made them think, an old country like that, to attack the greatest industrial giant the world had ever seen?
They thought they could cripple our navy so bad we wouldn't want to fight and by the time we were ready, Japan would have it's empire and the vast natural resources to challenge us.
That is possibly the most uninformed opinion I have ever heard on the topic.
Okay then jackass, enlighten me
Take a few wild guesses. Think Tonkin-ish.
What? You mean like the attack never happened? Then how do you explain the 2000+ Americans dead?
Oh boy, that is NOT what I was getting at, in regards to the vietnam shit.
Come on man, do some research. Anything, really, would make more sense than what you posted originally.
Its like sticking a sharp stick at rattle snakes. Eventually they leap out and bite you, regardless of how many weapons you have.
So you're saying we provoked Japan into attacking? How so?
Same thing we are doing to Iran. Cutting off trade routes, sanctions, etc.
I believe we also cut off their ability to ship in machine parts, industrial equipment pieces, etc. Googled it, and this came up. Not formal, but to the point. This would be similar to China restricting us of REE's, which is going to happen sooner or later.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100903065051AAXVWCi
I can't reply to your comment for some reason, but they were conquering China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Guinea, the Phillipenes, and were pushing into Burma and trying to get to India and already had Korea. So maybe that isn't "all" of Asia but that's still untold aggression by a fascist regime.
So we let Hitler run amuck, but decided that Japan was out of control? Japan wasnt doing any of that, its all pr nonsense for the purpose of making us look grand.
This is according to military historians, not me.
Yeah we cut them off because they were raping and pillaging all of Asia and we weren't gonna support that type of aggression.
Define "All of Asia"
Spade, have you, by chance, seen seen The Fog of War?
I tried to find it online, like at youtube, but it has been removed.
With Robert McNamara? Yeah it's a good movie, but I have it on DVD sorry
No, silly. I have it on DVD myself.
They didn't have to nuke Japan.
Oh lol, yeah I still believe we had to. Back then, I don't think we understood certain things but I think we had to do it to avoid an invasion and prevent the Soviets from gaining any more territory.
The Japanese had tried to surrender. The only reason that the bombs were dropped was to demonstrate power to the Soviet Union.
For some reason I can't reply to your comment below but to answer your question, yeah he totally would have had we lost but we won. It's war, war sucks but it's in the past now and I don't think we'll be nuking anyone ever again.
That's important too but I've read other things that says the Japanese were divided on surrendering but the nukes made them
You have seen the shots of their wooden cities on fire. They were done. You have heard McNamara recount his conversation with LaMay. If they lost that war they would be prosecuted as war criminals.
[Removed]
Don't be a hater
His abilty to get elected as a black guy was a good thing. His war mongering fascist policies are just more of the same.
Let's not forget that Obama didn't start either of the two wars we are embroiled in, nor can he simply pull all of the troops out at once without causing even more civil unrest on a massive scale. And he has followed through with a plan to end our presence in Iraq, at least. I don't know that there's much more he can responsibly do to hasten our troop's departure.
He followed through with Bush's plan. Irony.
And he re-signed the Patriot Act and kept GITMO open.
But he banned water-boarding and killed Osama bin-Laden
Oh god, you believe the OBL thing too?!
Don't start here, bin Laden is dead and that's a good thing
So says the press release... Eh, good enough for me!
Yes, because the government, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Huffington Post, Aljazeera, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all say he's dead, I believe he's dead.
And where do they get their news from?
I don't care, it's reliable enough
Reuters and AP. And Reuters and AP get their news from Gov press releases.
Its really easy to control the population when they all have TVs.
Once again, I don't give a shit, I have faith in people
You are putting a lot of trust in people who have proven to be liars time and time again.
People not questioning anything is what has gotten us into this mess.
Yes, two questionable decisions, for sure. I give him a pass on keeping Gitmo open for the time because it seems that there have at least been some effort at providing the prisoners habeas corpus, and beyond that not much can be done until we find a country willing to take them.
Now the Patriot Act, I'm not so sure. There are elements of that that I certainly don't like--like the whole unauthorized wire-tapping thing--but I don't know that's an indication of warmongering per se. If anything sinister, it's a sign of his hunger to hold onto the expanded Executive powers established under Dubbya. In all likelihood, though, the bill was renewed simply because the prospects of missing vital intelligence seemed too terrible to contemplate. He wouldn't be the first politician who sounded high and mighty about individual liberties while campaigning but had to make some tough choices once he got into office. Sacrifice for the sake of greater security is nothing new. Still, personally, I would rather have my phone calls listened to by some government hack than have to worry about getting blown to bits riding the tube.
Thats grand! Over the course of three fuckin years hes almost doubled the amount in Afghan, they arent coming home from Iraq- go ask some marines that are still there, bombing pakistan, yemen, somolia, invaded Libya, invaded Uganda, and is still taunting the Iranians-hence their shooting down the drone. Stopping all this will cause massive unrest?!!!!!
Well, no, I was speaking in particular about the ill effects of a precipitous withdraw from Afghanistan.
As for Iraq, I'm not sure why you say troops will be staying, as that conflicts with the both the Iraqi, US goverment, and media reports. And scale-back was underway even before Obama took office. But even if some troops do remain, I wouldn't consider their continued presence there an indication of Obama's warmongering. After all, we still have troops stationed in Germany and Okonowa, but that doesn't mean we are trying to pick another fight with those countries.
Libya and most of the others you mentioned were skirmishes that NATO became involved in. While I'm not sure how good of an idea policing the wold is (even multi-laterally), I don't think it's fair to say these are instances of "warmongering" if an international consensus is reached that military action is needed to prevent a humanitarian crisis.
Probably the only actions that could remotely be construed as warmongering, in my opinion, were the ones involving Pakistan. The most recent of those was an accident for which our government publicly apologized, while the other was to apprehend a notorious terrorist that had eluded capture for a decade, moving freely in and out of Pakistan's borders, apparently in full awareness of at least some of the Pakistani intelligence service. Pakistan receives all kind of military and financial support from the US, so I don't think Obama is in the wrong to put a little pressure on them to uphold their end of the bargain and help us thwart jihad-ism.
But that's all just my take on things. If you think Obama is too much of hawk, then by all means, make your voices heard to the Democratic establishment, or go for a dark horse candidates. I personally wouldn't hate it it if the US did become a little more non-interventionist. It's one of the few things I like about Ron Lawl's policy.
P.S. I'm not sure why it keeps changing Ron Lawl to Ron Lawl. Ghost in the machine, I guess.
The system is broken and until it's fixed it doesn't matter who you vote for. Democrat or Republican... The rich will rig the game against the average.
A few centrist Republicans like McCain have and might again line up behind campaign finance reform, but even the possibility of getting the needed votes on that is a long shot. You must realize that Republicans' core creed is that the free market fixes everything, so they have no interest in seeing a movement that seeks to regulate Wall Street gain traction, nor do they want any kind of new "entitlement" programs or progressive taxation or debt forgiveness. In short, their policies are the ones we have now, and they have no intention of giving them up, though their leaders will lie through their teeth about sharing your concerns long enough to keep you from voting for a Democrat.
His ability to get elelcted was due to the 4th estate ( the press) is really a 5th column.
I honestly believe the system and the problems of that system are way beyond this.