The Democrats and the Anti-war movement

The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/13/2007 8:59:13 PM)
Can the union hold through the election, or will the party be split?

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 8:41:25 AM)
Gee. Did I mention the elephant in the room, or what??? I honestly don't know. Is a common enemy (Bush/Republicans) enough to hold things together? If a split is inevitable, wouldn't it be better for the Democrats to force it BEFORE the primaries, so they don't wind up with a 'compromise' Nominee AND a passionate splinter faction walking out anyway? Or worse, a Candidate the moderate middle won't vote for?

juliaoceania -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 8:49:44 AM)
I do not think that the Democrats as a party have anything more to do with the pro-peace movement than any other group of people. There are some people that are committed to the idea of staying there no matter how bad it gets... these people are very few and far between. Personally I think that the Democrats missed their opportunity to be the party of peace.. they have squandered that position at every opportunity... and now many key Republicans seem to be positioning themselves to be the force behind bringing our troops home... it is all very disgusting.... they are all nothing but whores and that is why I insist on being an independent... Dennis Kucinich will hopefully be able to remain in the fray long enough to get the message of the peace movement front and center... he is about the only one I have one iota of respect for at this point, and I do not see that as changing any time soon.

Level -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 9:14:20 AM)
Rich, I don't see them splintering over the war. Too many of them know their best chance at power is in the larger group (same wit evangelical Republicans, probably, as to why they won't split with the Repubs). I mean, I don't see a massive new Sheehan party starting up. [:D] I saw she's been "warned" by the Daily Kos site: quote: I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress is not on the Democratic ticket. I have been deeply grateful for all of your support over the years. Your love and kindness helped me through lots of sleepless nights at Camp Casey '05. If Speaker Pelosi does her constitutionally mandated duty and I don't run, then I can come back and post. I know a lot of you are hostile towards my candidacy. Please understand that I am doing it for your children and grandchildren (and my surviving ones.) Love always, Cindy http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 9:25:38 AM)
I would disagree about the Dems level of investment with the anti-war movement. The House vote this week, right in the wake of Cindy Sheehan's threat to run for Pelosi's seat seems to illustrate that rather clearly. Some Republicans may be shifting positions on Iraq, but they have no debt to the peace-niks. I've heard Kucinich speak. He's a sharp guy. (Shame he's a damn commie [:D])

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 9:36:32 AM)
Thanks for the link, Level. I hadn't seen that nifty little tidbit.

Alumbrado -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 1:18:40 PM)
quote: I do not think that the Democrats as a party have anything more to do with the pro-peace movement than any other group of people. Thank you. The Democratic party as an entity is devoted to the naked pursuit of power, and the more they get, the more they behave exactly like the other major party. War should be a bad thing, period, not just a bad thing because 'they' started it.

Sinergy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 6:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Can the union hold through the election, or will the party be split? What "union" in the Democratic party are you referring to? I know of the 40% Religious Right influence over the Republicans, after the Republicans courted the Democratic (read religious) South to take control, but the Democrats are a much more diverse collection of individuals. As far as your "the only thing holding the Democrats together is the anti-war movement" comments; there actually was a Democratic party prior to the Republican's invading a sovereign nation. Or is this simply an attempt to create a divisive thread where there is no real division? Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 6:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy As far as your "the only thing holding the Democrats together is the anti-war movement" comments Sinergy Please show me where I said any such thing, Sinergy. My post was quite that the opposite; that the anti-war bundle could tear them apart, or at least draw away enough support to cost them the election. I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion. Holding them together???

Sinergy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 6:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Can the union hold through the election, or will the party be split? Note the use of the words "union" and "hold" Your question is asked and answered. I asked "what union?" and "why would there be a split?" I await your response. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 7:06:08 PM)
Perhaps your puzzlement is the result of simple denial... Meditation perhaps? Off to a performace of "The Bad Investors" or some such band. Enjoy your evening.

Sinergy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 7:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Perhaps your puzzlement is the result of simple denial... Meditation perhaps? Off to a performace of "The Bad Investors" or some such band. Enjoy your evening. Of course, if you understood what question you were actually asking, you might be capable of clarifying it. Your response is certainly one approach to avoiding explaining the meaning behind a poorly worded and inarticulate thread you yourself started. Sinergy

FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 7:43:36 PM)
. Fast Reply. Any Democrat voter that thinks an elected Democrat President in 2009 (when he/she will take office) will disengage in Iraq and bring home the American forces will be in for a very ruse awakening. No matter who is President in 2009 we will still be there. In fact, a Democrat President is likely to increase the troop numbers and very likely to re-institute the draft.

Sinergy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 8:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy . Fast Reply. Any Democrat voter that thinks an elected Democrat President in 2009 (when he/she will take office) will disengage in Iraq and bring home the American forces will be in for a very ruse awakening. No matter who is President in 2009 we will still be there. In fact, a Democrat President is likely to increase the troop numbers and very likely to re-institute the draft. What I take from your post is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Republicans getting us in to this clusterfuck, yet we should vote Republicans back into power because we need to be afraid that the Democrats might continue or expand on the Republican debacle. Did you bother to work this out with a pencil and a sheet of graph paper before you made this post? Sinergy p.s. I registered Democrat last election to vote against Jane Harmon, then went back to being Green. Dont try to blame this crap on me.

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 8:19:55 PM)
I'm just wondering when all the neo-commandos are going to recognize that the anti-war movement will win in the end. In fact, I might even believe we'd have a chance of winning this war if I knew what the hell the mission was.

Sinergy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 8:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I'm just wondering when all the neo-commandos are going to recognize that the anti-war movement will win in the end. In fact, I might even believe we'd have a chance of winning this war if I knew what the hell the mission was. What their posts seem to prove is that they have no idea what the mission is... Sinergy

MzMia -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 11:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Can the union hold through the election, or will the party be split? Democrats? I am more curious about who the Republicans are going to get, after the GREAT GWB. Encore? do you want more?

TheHeretic -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/14/2007 11:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What their posts seem to prove is that they have no idea what the mission is... Sinergy While your posts seem to prove you are trying very hard not to talk about the elephant in the room... (Not LaM's avatar. If you haven't come across the phrase in any of your vast readings, formal education or experience as a scientist and engineer, referenced in many posts where you don't find it convenient to feign ignorance, Google it). I think the Dems have a good shot. I think it will be a better shot if they free themselves of the protest bundle. Whatever. G'nite.

Level -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/15/2007 4:13:39 AM)
Some war and the Dems links: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-12.htm http://antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10674 And this ditty, which begins: "I was a lifelong Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese concentration camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our 'Saviors,' because I am not buying it, especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George's abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity." http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11269 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062001802.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/19/dems.activists.ap/index.html

FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/15/2007 5:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What I take from your post is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Republicans getting us in to this clusterfuck, yet we should vote Republicans back into power because we need to be afraid that the Democrats might continue or expand on the Republican debacle. Look... Take whatever you want from it, I really do not care, the bottom line is the Demorcrats are not going to stop the current war in Iraq. They will continue to keep it going.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125