• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Democratic Party is the Party of War

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Warlike Party.... Long live WAR
and then war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war and war.

After watching this interview...I mean.



But if you want to convince me it isn't the party of war...well...I am listening to you. I am ready to say: sorry, it's not the party of war.
;)

PS: Since this thread is not about Trump, do not mention him, or I will have to kindly ask you to remove the posts bringing him up. :)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Warlike Party.... Long live WAR
and then war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war and war.

After watching this interview...I mean.



But if you want to convince me it isn't the party of war...well...I am listening to you. I am ready to say: sorry, it's not the party of war.
;)

PS: Since this thread is not about Trump, do not mention him, or I will have to kindly ask you to remove the posts bringing him up. :)

I suppose it would depend on how you define "party of war." That phrase seems to suggest that war is all they ever do, but that would not be correct.

Republicans have made this charge against Democrats before, and in some ways, it was difficult to argue against. Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Presidents at the time America entered the World Wars. Not that anyone blames them for the wars themselves. Truman was President during the Korean War, and LBJ was President at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Although the war was continued by Nixon.

I've observed that both political parties essentially subscribe to the same philosophy about foreign policy and hold largely similar perceptions about the outside world. In that sense, the Republicans tried to paint themselves as more zealous defenders of freedom and the American way of life, while painting the Democrats as "peaceniks" and wimps who were too soft on communism and other purported "enemies" of America.

Funny thing was, Democrats seemed desperate to break that "wimpy" image and show that they could be just as tough as Republicans.

BN-NO700_offscr_FR_20160415131024.jpg


So, if you see the Democrats as the "party of war" now, then maybe it's because they wanted to be.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I suppose it would depend on how you define "party of war." That phrase seems to suggest that war is all they ever do, but that would not be correct.
But... during the Obama years the Mediterranean Area was completely destabilized. The Libyan War and the Syrian War (the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt) really brought nothing but turmoil and crises.
And Obama even got the Nobel Prize for Peace...the most warlike president in US history.
I may understand that almost all Americans couldn't care less about this area of the world (since we are considered less than zero in their eyes)...but we do care. It was very personal.
That is why I will always express nothing but contempt towards POTUS number 44.


Republicans have made this charge against Democrats before, and in some ways, it was difficult to argue against. Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Presidents at the time America entered the World Wars. Not that anyone blames them for the wars themselves. Truman was President during the Korean War, and LBJ was President at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Although the war was continued by Nixon.
I was born in 1985... I'd like to focus on the 21st century... :)
also because I mean the Democratic Party of today...not Kennedy's party.
I've observed that both political parties essentially subscribe to the same philosophy about foreign policy and hold largely similar perceptions about the outside world.
The philosophy that USA is God...whereas Europeans are manure? :)
Pardon my crassness, but that's the perception...given that Orban is considered some sort of boogeyman in the USA...even if he's the PM of a very, very tiny country.
There must be hatred and disgust towards all that's European, then.

In that sense, the Republicans tried to paint themselves as more zealous defenders of freedom and the American way of life, while painting the Democrats as "peaceniks" and wimps who were too soft on communism and other purported "enemies" of America.
Funny thing was, Democrats seemed desperate to break that "wimpy" image and show that they could be just as tough as Republicans.
Watch the FOX interview.
And tell me how many times the candidate mentions military and war.
So, if you see the Democrats as the "party of war" now, then maybe it's because they wanted to be.
They have become since the American Hussein took office.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
But... during the Obama years the Mediterranean Area was completely destabilized. The Libyan War and the Syrian War (the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt) really brought nothing but turmoil and crises.
And Obama even got the Nobel Prize for Peace...the most warlike president in US history.
I may understand that almost all Americans couldn't care less about this area of the world (since we are considered less than zero in their eyes)...but we do care. It was very personal.
That is why I will always express nothing but contempt towards POTUS number 44.

I'm not defending Obama or the actions of his administration, except I would just point out that the job of President includes many things, relating to both foreign and domestic affairs.

I'm not even sure if the policy originated from Obama himself, or even the Democratic Party.

In practice, I've observed that, in matters of foreign and military policy, most Presidents just seem to "go with the flow" and do exactly what they're expected to do in any given foreign policy situation or crisis.

That's the one part of their job where they don't have to think or engage in any kind of creativity, since all they have to do is read from a script and work out of a playbook that was written decades before they came to office. If they don't follow the established script, they'll find themselves facing the wrath of some very powerful forces, and they don't want that.

I was born in 1985... I'd like to focus on the 21st century... :)

Every tree has its roots and its beginnings. If it's a rotten tree, then it's worthwhile to point out exactly when the tree became rotten, how and why. That happened in the 20th century.

Besides, the 21st century kind of sucks so far. ;)

also because I mean the Democratic Party of today...not Kennedy's party.

There is still an etymology, a connection between the past and present. This all just didn't spring up out of nothing.

The philosophy that USA is God...whereas Europeans are manure? :)

Many Americans view Europe with a great deal of sentimentality and fondness.

Pardon my crassness, but that's the perception...given that Orban is considered some sort of boogeyman in the USA...even if he's the PM of a very, very tiny country.
There must be hatred and disgust towards all that's European, then.

They might still have their favorites among European leaders. I don't see this as an "America vs. Europe" thing.

When we're talking about the highest echelons of power, I sense a great deal of callousness and indifference towards the lower classes, which is shared by the upper classes in both America and Europe. They seemingly hold a great deal of contempt and hatred towards lower-class Americans they consider "deplorable."

I've heard more than a few Europeans speak of America as if it's some kind of vast wasteland, so it comes from both sides, you know? :)

Watch the FOX interview.
And tell me how many times the candidate mentions military and war.

Maybe later. I'm not in the mood for a video like that on a Saturday morning.

They have become since the American Hussein took office.

I call it "selling out" and giving in to political pressure of the kind they were facing after losing three presidential elections in a row (1980, 1984, 1988). They just couldn't bear it anymore, and they seemingly couldn't sell their message to the public, so they shifted to more pro-war, pro-capitalist beliefs. The Republicans also ran pro-war, pro-capitalist candidates all along, as Bush and his son were in that category. McCain and Romney were avowed interventionists, capitalists, and warmongers, so absolutely nothing would have turned out differently in Libya or the Mediterranean if they had gotten elected.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Both parties are "parties of war" as the United States in general is a warmongering nation - which is obvious to anyone who looks at our federal budget. The way in which the parties leverage that is different while also being bound by circumstances outside of direct control.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Both parties are "parties of war" as the United States in general is a warmongering nation - which is obvious to anyone who looks at our federal budget. The way in which the parties leverage that is different while also being bound by circumstances outside of direct control.
Edited by Editor 8778 at the time of this posting because no one edits like 8778 can!

Still a list can be useful....

 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I'm not defending Obama or the actions of his administration, except I would just point out that the job of President includes many things, relating to both foreign and domestic affairs.

I'm not even sure if the policy originated from Obama himself, or even the Democratic Party.
Wikileaks clearly shows they were in on it.
That is why they persecuted Assange.
Who is alive by miracle.
In practice, I've observed that, in matters of foreign and military policy, most Presidents just seem to "go with the flow" and do exactly what they're expected to do in any given foreign policy situation or crisis.
...I do believe Obama has a mind on his own...and he deliberately did what he did.
He didn't go with the flow at all.

That's the one part of their job where they don't have to think or engage in any kind of creativity, since all they have to do is read from a script and work out of a playbook that was written decades before they came to office. If they don't follow the established script, they'll find themselves facing the wrath of some very powerful forces, and they don't want that.
They sign documents...though.


Many Americans view Europe with a great deal of sentimentality and fondness.
Honestly I have never seen Europe mentioned in any political debate...
Which is totally different than the EU debates. At the EU parliament all continents are mentioned.


They might still have their favorites among European leaders. I don't see this as an "America vs. Europe" thing.
I have never said there is.
I have said that Europe's destiny is not even taken into account.
It's like we didn't even exist. So how can there be something against something that doesn't exist?

It's like there was the Atlantic Ocean and then Russia. Period. :)
When we're talking about the highest echelons of power, I sense a great deal of callousness and indifference towards the lower classes, which is shared by the upper classes in both America and Europe. They seemingly hold a great deal of contempt and hatred towards lower-class Americans they consider "deplorable."

I've heard more than a few Europeans speak of America as if it's some kind of vast wasteland, so it comes from both sides, you know? :)
Europe is so americanized that Europeans cannot use that kind of criticism...because it would be self-criticism.
It's not a cultural problem.

When Europeans say America, they mean the banking and financial sewer that funds all the wars...
so they certainly don't mean the 99,99% of the American citizens. ;) for whom they even express sympathy for coexisting with those rats.

Maybe later. I'm not in the mood for a video like that on a Saturday morning.
For later: just the last 5 minutes suffice.
I call it "selling out" and giving in to political pressure of the kind they were facing after losing three presidential elections in a row (1980, 1984, 1988). They just couldn't bear it anymore, and they seemingly couldn't sell their message to the public, so they shifted to more pro-war, pro-capitalist beliefs. The Republicans also ran pro-war, pro-capitalist candidates all along, as Bush and his son were in that category. McCain and Romney were avowed interventionists, capitalists, and warmongers, so absolutely nothing would have turned out differently in Libya or the Mediterranean if they had gotten elected.
That's absolutely true.
But at least they are not phony. They admit they are interventionists.

I despise phoniness...the dems who pretend to be pacifists, and then they unleash dozens of war.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Both parties are "parties of war" as the United States in general is a warmongering nation - which is obvious to anyone who looks at our federal budget. The way in which the parties leverage that is different while also being bound by circumstances outside of direct control.
Let's say that lately the Democratic Party has deservedly gained the Nobel Prize for War. :)
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
But... during the Obama years the Mediterranean Area was completely destabilized. The Libyan War and the Syrian War (the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt) really brought nothing but turmoil and crises.
And Obama even got the Nobel Prize for Peace...the most warlike president in US history.
What qualifies Obama as the most warlike president in US history?
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Warlike Party.... Long live WAR
and then war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war and war.

After watching this interview...I mean.



But if you want to convince me it isn't the party of war...well...I am listening to you. I am ready to say: sorry, it's not the party of war.
;)

PS: Since this thread is not about Trump, do not mention him, or I will have to kindly ask you to remove the posts bringing him up. :)

Isn't that a little unfair, not allowing to reply mentioning the last and possibly next Republican President?

How about Bush Sr. and Jr.?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The U.S. loves war.

Well, not the whole U.S., but certainly all the folks with money and influence in the U.S. love war. Making implements of war is BIG money for a whole lot of people that already have a LOT of money, and that want a LOT more of it. And those are the people that make all the decisions about when we go to war and with whom.

But those people also supply the weapons of war to many other nations around the globe, too. So they make a LOT of money anytime any of those other nations go to war with each other. Because every missile, bomb, and bullet spent means they get to sell the replacements. And that means big bucks for the military industrial complex even if the war has nothing to do with the U.S.,.

Money, money, money, baby! That's what it's all about. Killing people costs money. One needs lots and lots of very expensive weapons, and that's what we make and sell the best of. So when the world stops fighting with each other fr a minute, we will start a fight to just get the cycle going again. Because war mean BIG BUCKS for the Greedy Buckaroos that make and sell the weapons of warfare. And they couldn't care less how many people are killed along the way.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Isn't that a little unfair, not allowing to reply mentioning the last and possibly next Republican President?

How about Bush Sr. and Jr.?
I was expecting something like "No, the Democratic Party is for peace".
But you will never say it...I am pretty sure of that. ;)
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
What qualifies Obama as the most warlike president in US history?
Because the amount of destabilization, unrest and turmoil caused in the Mediterranean area because of his administration surpasses that of many other presidents.
This article has a superb titles. How Syria has stained Barack forever.
Your American Hussein will never be forgotten. ;)
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The U.S. loves war.

Well, not the whole U.S., but certainly all the folks with money and influence in the U.S. love war. Making implements of war is BIG money for a whole lot of people that already have a LOT of money, and that want a LOT more of it. And those are the people that make all the decisions about when we go to war and with whom.

But those people also supply the weapons of war to many other nations around the globe, too. So they make a LOT of money anytime any of those other nations go to war with each other. Because every missile, bomb, and bullet spent means they get to sell the replacements. And that means big bucks for the military industrial complex even if the war has nothing to do with the U.S.,.

Money, money, money, baby! That's what it's all about. Killing people costs money. One needs lots and lots of very expensive weapons, and that's what we make and sell the best of. So when the world stops fighting with each other fr a minute, we will start a fight to just get the cycle going again. Because war mean BIG BUCKS for the Greedy Buckaroos that make and sell the weapons of warfare. And they couldn't care less how many people are killed along the way.
Excellent. Nobody could have explained it better.
My affirmation is that all these money-hungry people fund the Democratic Party. :)
As in a quid pro quo: they will wage wars on their behalf.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
why would the good people of religiousforums want to lie and say that?

With all due respect...but maybe Europeans' point of view would help Americans understand ... beyond the glass dome that protects them from the outside world.

This is a leftist politician, criticizing the warlike attitude of the ongoing administration.

 
Top