Why are Republicans the cause of all the worlds problems

It seems as if this new philosophy came in the world called Republican. Beware of this new philosophy and follower of the cause.

Everything they say they say has Gods approval. Everything they write they say has been approved by God's chosen ministers and they put God's mark of approval on it, called the church’s Imprimatur.

However, in reality nothing they have ever done has helped the world’s problems. Why? A Republican is just a cog in a machine of the military industrial complex. All they have done and will continue to do is to create Wars, and destruction.

There has never been Republican peacemaker. A peace maker such as Gandhi, King, or Kennedy.

The only products that they have created are products of hate and destruction. The Republicans created the Taliban.

Stay away from all their works of evil. Don’t read their writings or listen to their messages. They are just trying to brainwash you.

Don't vote for a Republican or a Democrat that approves any Republican
Philosophies, such as advocacy of the death penalty, and advocacy to punish the poor because they are poor.

The Republicans are in fact poor; all their riches are stolen from the poor and given to the rich.

Don't vote for Dean he wants to be a Republican-lite.

Vote for someone that will have the following creed:

To abolish the death penalty for National Security reasons.
(America needs to go on a PR campaign to help or public image)

To forgive all foreign debts owed to Republican owned banks thus forgive all debts owed to Uncle Sam (America).

Tax only corporations and not the people.

Destroy all the stockpiles of (ABC) weapons atomic, biological, and chemical weapons

Cut the military budget by 95%, a large military is just an easy target.

Change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of Non-Violence

Create a non-violent Army, Navy, air-Force and Marine Corps

Abide by all international anti global warming laws.

Give Texas back to Mexico and all card carrying Republicans living in Texas would then be Mexico citizens.

Create a welfare program like has never been seen before to help the poor in the United States and the world.

Medical care for all for Free

No wars outside of our own borders unless we are attacked, and that includes police actions around the world.

Increase taxes on corporations

Forgive all debts owed by citizens of the United States

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was banned from a conservative message board (stewartwhite.com) just yesterday. This happened after I posted a picture that I assume Stewart himself found questionable. The picture in question was posted in response to another posters’ opinions regarding how terrorism will ultimately be stamped out. Less than ten minutes later, the entire thread had been deleted.

I searched for a plausible explanation for the deletion of the thread. I even posted an inquiry, and less than a minute later, it disappeared as well. Moments later I was banned (or “muted” as it is called on that board).

I considered the copyright issue, but ruled it out because there are several other threads in which copyrighted pictures are posted, and at least a few are of barely clothed women. (In particular I am remembering a streaming mpeg involving Britney Spears, her bra and underwear) Political cartoons are also found on the board. A Mallard Filmore strip is the latest I have come across.

So I considered the content of the cartoon I posted:

A city lying in ruins. A grief stricken mother lying over a young child. The young child is presumably deceased(although no missing limbs or injuries are shown). An older child with an angry look, fists clinched, walking away. The caption reads “Can you find the Al-Queda Recruit?”

Painful? Yes? Truthful? Indeed (imho) Tasteful? At least as much, if not more than Britney Spears in her underwear.

Now while I understood completely that the opinion portrayed by this cartoon may not be the opinion of many, it did share my perspective very nicely.

I am concerned about the censorship of this particular post and ultimately my presence on the board. The posters at the S.W. site regularly decry the peril of censorship they receive on other boards,( in particular okdemocrat). They voice concern about the deletion of their posts and label it “un-American.” They are angered because they feel they have simply provided a different perspective from the majority opinion on other message boards, and have been silenced because of it.

So what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

No one should claim the right to post as they wish
wherever they wish. Let it be gone.

.

why not wish for world peace, a pony and a castle?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"There has never been Republican peacemaker. A peace maker such as Gandhi, King, or Kennedy."

Excuse me?

I don't understand.

Which Kennedy are you referring to here?

Certainly not John F. Kennedy.

He almost brought about WWIII when he imposed a quarantine of a sovereign nation.

He introduced American troops ("advisors" as they were called back then) into South Vietnam.

When more than 58,000 American troops had been killed, you know who made peace with the Vietnamese and brought our soldiers back home?

It was that dispicable Republican, Richard Nixon.

Kennedy was not the one who introduced "advisors" into Viet Nam. It was Ike. Secondly, you have a problem with his quarantine of Cuba? If so, you will be the first I have ever heard of that opposed that policy. I lived thru that time and it would have been totally irresponsible to have ignored the missle threat in Cuba.

"Kennedy was not the one who introduced "advisors" into Viet Nam. It was Ike"

Thanks for the correction.

But did Kennedy withdraw any of Ike's "advisors"? Did Kennedy increase the number of advisors in Vietnam? I find it very difficult to call John F. Kennedy a "peacemaker" -- certainly a peacemaker in the same league with Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Kennedy was a cold war hawk whose 1960 campaign was based, in large measure, on a non-existent "missle gap" between the USA and the USSR.

". Secondly, you have a problem with his quarantine of Cuba? If so, you will be the first I have ever heard of that opposed that policy. I lived thru that time and it would have been totally irresponsible to have ignored the missle threat in Cuba."

Since you asked, I do indeed have "a problem" with JFK's quarantine of Cuba. (By the way, I just recently celebrated my 52nd birthday, so I too lived through this period of our nation's history).

We had missles in Turkey -- missles aimed at the USSR. What gave us the right to have missles in Turkey -- and later in W. Germany -- but forbad the USSR and Cuba from agreeing to have USSR missles stationed in Cuba? What would we have said if the USSR had put a quarantine around W. Germany until we agreed to dismantle our missles there and bring them back here? Do you think we might have said that the Soviet Premier "would have been totally irresponsible to have ignored the missle threat in W. Germany"? Or do you think it far more likely that we would have said that the Soviet Premier was acting aggressively?

I don't think anybody but Nikita and Castro looked upon the U.S. as a threat at that time. I don't recall Kennedy ever banging his shoe on a desk in the U.N. and saying "We will bury you." I'm not a war hawk but our missiles pointed at the U.S.S.R. were for defensive purposes only and most of the world realized that. Missiles 90 miles from our shores in the hands of mad men was totally unacceptable. Kennedy kept the peace by being tough when being tough was the only answer to cold war Russia.

How can you have a non-violent defense force?

If there are to be no wars outside our borders unless attacked, how can we defend ourselves if our defense forces are "non-violent" ?

I'm very confused.

Gandhi's principles can't be to off base. He kicked the British out of his country using a non-violent army.

And even our Army ( the United States Armed Forces ) does research in how to use non-violent tactics to deal with conflicts.


http://www.geocities.com/gwswing/mercyforce.html

Gary Swing says it well

"Pacifism isn't just a good idea -- it's the law. On August 27, 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed in Paris. This historic treaty outlawing war was ratified by the United States Senate on February 17, 1929 and signed by nearly every other nation existing at the time. The Kellogg-Briand Pact pledges all countries to resolve international conflicts only by pacific means, thereby mandating pacifism."

And Gandhi says it well as well:

A non-violent army acts unlike armed men, as well in times of peace as in times of disturbances. Theirs will be the duty of bringing warring communities together, carrying peace propaganda, engaging in activities that would bring and keep them in touch with every single person in their parish or division. Such an army should be ready to cope with any emergency, and in order to still the frenzy of mobs should risk their lives in numbers sufficient for that purpose. . . . Satragrapha (truth-force) brigades can be organized in every village and every block of buildings in the cities. In non-violent bodies the charger or soul force must mean everything and the physique must take second place. It is difficult to find such persons. That is why the non-violent force must be small if it is to be efficient.
----Mahatma Gandhi


http://www.geocities.com/gwswing/mercyforce.html

; )

<http://www.bushflash.com/ihr.html>

Absurd, irrelevant, and just plain dumb.

Why? A Republican is just a cog in a machine of the military industrial complex. All they have done and will continue to do is to create Wars, and destruction.

Even with the most cosmetic overview of history, that applies to both sides, not just republicans.

There has never been Republican peacemaker. A peace maker such as Gandhi, King, or Kennedy.

There have been precious little peacemakers at any time in history, and it's intellectually dishonest to use Gandhi as an example, since he wasn't a Democrat and didn't vote here or hold office here.

The only products that they have created are products of hate and destruction. The Republicans created the Taliban.

Patently, laughably oversimplified and inaccurate.

Don't vote for a Republican or a Democrat that approves any Republican Philosophies, such as advocacy of the death penalty, and advocacy to punish the poor because they are poor.

How is support of the DP a 'republican' policy if Democrats vote for and support it?

To abolish the death penalty for National Security reasons.
(America needs to go on a PR campaign to help or public image)

While I am against the DP, to do so because it's against 'national security' is ridiculous.

To forgive all foreign debts owed to Republican owned banks thus forgive all debts owed to Uncle Sam (America).

Zzzzzzz.......

Cut the military budget by 95%, a large military is just an easy target.

Utterly out of touch with history and reality.

Change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of Non-Violence

Create a non-violent Army, Navy, air-Force and Marine Corps

A 'non-violent' armed forces? Say, would you be interested in buying my perpetual-motion brick?

Give Texas back to Mexico and all card carrying Republicans living in Texas would then be Mexico citizens.

Cartoonish and a sure-fire way not to get taken seriously. How about having Mexico give back Mexico to the Aztecs and Mayans? If not, why not?

Forgive all debts owed by citizens of the United States

Yawn. Good night.

Gandhi was a democrat. Are the British Democrats? As far as I have seen they are run by a king, or Queen.

How can you say that after they kicked the British out by means of non-violent principles and acts, that they are not democrats. After they kicked the British out India became the largest Democratic country in the world.

Indeed, Gandhi was not a Democrat. People who are Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. As far as I know, Gandhi was never a member of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Gandhi was never a citizen of the United States of America, and most people who are Democrats are also citizens of the United States.

But Gandhi was most certainly a democrat. He was not a monarchist, nor a colonialist. He might, however, have been a republican.

By the way, did you know that if you happen to believe in the system of Government we have here in the USA, then you are a republican and not a democrat??

arent literal republicans, more like oligarchyists. In reality had I lived in the mid 19th century I would had been a republican, you see for a while socialist and republican were kinda the same, I say that on an international level, in the revolutions of 1848 the reformers were republicans very much for the people by the people really. If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would be a republican because I would want to be in the republic or have a republican elected government. The term republic stems to Ancient Rome.

"In reality had I lived in the mid 19th century I would had been a republican, you see for a while socialist and republican were kinda the same, I say that on an international level, in the revolutions of 1848 the reformers were republicans very much for the people by the people really."

I must be on fructose overload this afternoon. I am sure there is some meaning somehwhere in the sentence (?) you have written.

I just can't seem to find it.

what a thread...

and stir things up. Then I can use the outrageous quotes they make against them!