My decision is made.

[bvar22]

The Pledge:

[font size=3]I will NEVER vote for or support any Senator or Congressman who votes "YES" on Military Intervention in Syria.[/font]

My Wife has signed the pledge.
That makes 2 so far.

I pray that the +80% of Americans who OPPOSE Military Intervention in another Middle East Civil War join me, and make this known to friends, family, and especially the politicians who claim to represent us.

[pscot]

1. Yes

[Cryptoad]

158. Yes,,,, by all means

lets give people like Assad the "go" to do what ever he wants...

[nikto]

161. maybe...

We could send Eric Holder to Syria and he can bust Assad for Pot, and
put him in a for-profit prison.

[ProSense]

2. This is going to be good.

Al Franken supports it. The Senators from Mass will likely support it. We'll know more in a week or two.

[polichick]

5. Well, ultimately it will come down to the people vs the mic...

Many of "our leaders" are highly invested in various aspects of that tax-stealing venture - it'll take a while to sort it all out.

[Mojorabbit]

8. Well that makes it all good and ok like then. nt

[bvar22]

9. My Wife and I are absolutely serious.

Do our "representatives" work for the +80% of us who OPPOSE this New WAR,
or do they work for somebody else.

If they are working for somebody else,
they don't deserve my vote, my money, or my support.

[L0oniX]

11. You can't vote Goldman Sachs out of office anyway. n/t

[ProSense]

12. So,

"If they are working for somebody else, they don't deserve my vote, my money, or my support.

...if Senator Warren votes for the resolution and the next Democratic Presidential primary is between Hillary and Warren, you're going to sit it out?

[Auntie Bush]

19. So you're drawing your own red line?

And possibly cutting your own nose to spite your face. Think about the SC and women's rights...that effects even more people. Sometimes the tide comes up and washes away the lines. Think about where you draw your line...in the sand or scratched on a rock.

[A Simple Game]

130. The Supreme Court and women's rights won't mean much if we don't have a democracy anymore.

It is far past the time we should quit making excuses for the people that don't represent us anymore.

It is now time to vote for America instead of a D or an R.

[Auntie Bush]

154. What R idea would make you vote for them?

I frankly can't think of a single one...but I can think of a lot of horrible polices that they have already practiced when they have control of all three branches of government. Plus they would put in another conservative SCJ. Horrors!

[A Simple Game]

190. If you would take a minute to let me know, please tell me what

I said in my previous post that would make you think I would vote for a Republican?

I haven't voted for a Republican on any party line in at least 20 years. I also haven't voted for anyone on the Democratic line in about 10 years, although I generally have to vote for the Democrat in an election.

[bvar22]

22. I have never chosen "sit it out" as an option.

Nor have I ever advocated for ANY American to "sit it out".

I have made my position crystal clear.
I hope the +80% of Americans who oppose a Military Intervention make their position clear too.

"Can't get fooled again."--- George Bush

[ProSense]

30. So who would you support?

Hillary or Warren?

[bvar22]

37. I will cross that Red Line when I come to it.

Whats up with these diversions and hypothetical fantasies from ProSense's FutureWorld?

Was I NOT clear in my OP?
What part do you NOT understand?

[ProSense]

44. Well,

I will cross that Red Line when I come to it.

Whats up with these diversions and hypothetical fantasies from ProSense's FutureWorld?

Was I NOT clear in my OP?
What part do you NOT understand?

...you said "never" in the OP title:

I will NEVER vote for or support any Senator or Congressman who votes "YES" on Military Intervention in Syria.

Your current statement qualifies that "never" might not really mean "never."

[bvar22]

53. Pffft.

Your attempt to blow smoke is noted.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

157. LOL.

Apparently, "Attempt to blow smoke" is the new political-drama-queen speak for "Devastatingly point out my logical inconsistencies".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

74. Do you have a point with this cross examination? bvar22 has integrity. Something

that those that blindly follow certainly dont.

[ProSense]

82. Put it this way

"Do you have a point with this cross examination? bvar22 has integrity. Something that those that blindly follow certainly dont."

...I see the vote for DOMA has having far worse consequences for millions of Americans. Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA. I doubt that the poster would agree that after that vote, Wellstone should have been abandoned. "Never" is a long time.

Also, having "integrity" means respecting other people's opinions and not labeling them because you disagree.

[rhett o rick]

90. You "see the vote for DOMA has having far worse consequences for millions of Americans. "

Looks like bvar disagrees. I hope you respect his opinion. Integrity means saying what needs to be said in spite of what the authoritarian state wants.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. One thing I have learned as I have gotten older...never say never

is quite the true adage.

[dflprincess]

137. One more time, Wellstone also publicly repented his DOMA vote because, unlike some politicians,

he listened to and learned from the people he represented (and he represented people, not coporate interests).

From an email Mark & David Wellstone sent from Wellstone Action: (which I saved knowing some DUers would use Wellstone's bad vote on this to justify bad moves by the current corporatists running the Democratic party).

DOMA and Our Dad?

Friends,

Change happens. Sometimes it happens in the blink of an eye, but often it takes decades of organizing, fighting, and struggling for what’s right.

Yesterday, at the United States Supreme Court, we saw what can come from that struggle. But we know it took decades of hard work to get there.

On a brisk fall day in 1996, 85 United State Senators, including our dad, Paul Wellstone, voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act that limited the definition of marriage. Our dad spent a career in the Senate making one principled and courageous vote after another. This was an exception. Dad spent a lot of time reflecting, soul-searching, and apologizing about that vote.

In 2001 he wrote this, “What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA. When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Matthew Shepard, I thought to myself, 'Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?'"

By 2002, groups like the Human Rights Campaign gave him a 100% rating for his votes in the Senate. In our dad’s journey, we see hope for a sustained movement: changing hearts, shaping policy, and effecting change, one person, one community, and one decision at a time.

[fadedrose]

17. Some got their jobs because of donations...

from military equiment manufacturers.

They can't make any money on peace agreements. Keep stirring up trouble, never agree, and the left and right will both remain in power.

Sometimes I think Israel is a pawn that keeps weapons makers rich. I've seen programs where they don't show us the part of Israel that wants peace.

[Doctor_J]

100. there are leftists in power somewhere?

Clue me in, I'd like to move there. It's certainly not this country.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. Maybe in Reykjavik?

[Doctor_J]

182. that must be what she meant

Didn't dawn on me at the time

[rug]

15. He also supported the Iraq War after the Secretary of State made a speech.

He later regretted it.

[bvar22]

195. He later regretted it.... AFTER the tide of Public Opinion turned against the WAR.

If the WAR had gone like Rumsfeld had predicted,
and we were greeted as HEROES and Liberators after 6 weeks,
I'm certain Kerry would have kept his mouth shut and ridden the WAVE of Drum Beating Nationalism and American Exceptionalism for all it was worth.


I'm always suspicious of Jail House Conversions.

[TM99]

24. What if they threw a war and no one came.

Lie to the people long enough and it doesn't matter what party is in power. The people will say enough!

2014 could be brutal for Democrats indeed. But I am certain you and other party sycophants will blame the 'purist' lefties for any losses that might rightly occur because of this kabuki theater.

[bvar22]

77. I've always loved that line.

"What if they threw a war and no one came."


Unfortunately, THIS guy was closer to the bitter Truth.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."--- Herman Goering, Spandau Prison, 1946

John Kerry was on the Sunday Morning Talking Heads trying to make Bombing Syria a matter of OUR National Security.
He wasn't doing a very good job.
In fact, he was incoherent in a few places, which is uncharacteristic of him.
I think he knew he was lying, and it bothered him.

[TM99]

84. Yes, I watched the disgusting display of propaganda

on the Sunday morning 'talk shows'.

Ironic you quote Goering when he compares Assad to Hitler.

I am starting to understand why Kerry was made SoS.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

162. IMO, "I think he knew" we knew "he was lying, and it bothered him."

[Mnemosyne]

91. 'Zor and Zam - The Monkees 1968' Sorry couldn't embed link to song for some reason.

Zor And Zam Lyrics

Original:

The king of Zor, he called for war
And the king of Zam, he answered.
They fashioned their weapons one upon one
Ton upon ton, they called for war at the rise of the sun.

Out went the call to one and to all
That echoed and rolled like the thunder.
Trumpets and drums, roar upon roar
More upon more.
Rolling the call of "Come now to war."

Throughout the night they fashioned their might
With right on the side of the mighty.
They puzzled their minds plan upon plan
Man upon man
And at dying of dawn the great war began.

They met on the battlefield banner in hand.
They looked out across the vacant land.
And they counted the missing, one upon one,
None upon none.
The war it was over before it begun.

Two little kings playing a game.
They gave a war and nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
(repeat and fade)

There is no pause:

The king of Zor, he called for war
And the king of Zam, he answered.
They fashioned their weapons one upon one
Ton upon ton, they called for war at the rise of the sun.

Out went the call to one and to all
That echoed and rolled like the thunder.
Trumpets and drums, roar upon roar
More upon more.
Rolling the call of "Come now to war."

Throughout the night they fashioned their might
With right on the side of the mighty.
They puzzled their minds plan upon plan
Man upon man
And at dying of dawn the great war began.

They met on the battlefield banner in hand.
They looked out across the vacant land.
And they counted the missing, one upon one,
None upon none.
The war it was over before it begun.
Two little kings playing a game.
They gave a war and nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
And nobody came.
(repeat and fade)

[TM99]

94. Apropos indeed!

I am not that familiar with the Monkees. I might need to revisit them.

Thanks for that.

[Mnemosyne]

191. They had a few good ones, excluding most of the radio songs. Watch 'Head' sometime, total irrevence

to the image portrayed. And some good tunes...

[sabrina 1]

49. I don't think the word 'good' applies to anything to do with war, bombs, killing people.

It's not a game. It has to do with lives, human lives.

How cavalier we have become regarding the lives of other people. So long as our teams over here 'win'.

I hope whoever did this is found and prosecuted and I hope this country will begin investigations into the War Crimes we have ignored for so long so that the victims get some kind of justice.

I would be surprised if Congress voted against another war. We can't seem to stop killing people. I guess it becomes a habit. At least the people used to think of the victims, now it's more like a gambling game.

And it's obscene. We are being told all over the world that we do not have the moral authority to be involved in this. Many comments about our own Crimes, even in Parliament.

But the US has become immune to the suffering of others. Pretending to 'care' about victims of war crimes? Then show the world by taking care of our own criminals first.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. At least she's not using thos 'this subject is so hilarious to me' emoticons in all of the threads

about war. I was in a thread the other day 'what about the dead kids' thread, filled with giggling Centrists and their emoticon show. Repulsive.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Franken supported Bushco's invasion of Iraq as well. Believed that 'intel' about yellowcake.

Not a very good selling point.

[Enthusiast]

138. Al Franken is wrong.

I won't send him another donation. And I understand he also voted to cut food stamps. I thought Al was my kind of guy. Guess not.

[CrispyQ]

148. This. ^^^

Franken is wrong. If Warren votes for it, she is wrong. I agree with Bvar - no votes for warmongers. I've been voting for the lesser of two evils & I'm getting exactly what I didn't want. NO MORE OF THIS BULLSHIT.

[mike_c]

3. agreed....

eom

[leftstreet]

4. DURec

[fadedrose]

6. Send emails too

to folks asking them to contact their US Rep and Senator. I sent to some neighbors and familly....

[tritsofme]

7. Seems like an incredibly silly and simplistic position to me.

But if this will serve as your excuse to oppose Democrats you never would have supported in the first place, then more power to you I suppose.

[Maedhros]

13. It's called having some integrity.

You shouldn't mock those who take principled stands.

[zeemike]

21. Some people flushed integrity down the crapper long ago.

Now it is all about your party winning and what you do after that makes no difernece...just so your party wins and the other party loses.
It might as well be a high school football game.

[MH1]

25. LOL, it's called being clueless about how "democracy" works in the US

Luckily for liberals, there are just about as many clueless ones on the far right as on the far left.

Sometimes when canvassing, if I know the person is a conservative, I will try to convince them to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party.

Hmmm...

[leftstreet]

31. You encourage people to vote for Libertarians?

Aren't you supposed to be convincing them to vote for Democrats?

[bvar22]

35. I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make either,

...but I've never campaigned for anyone but Democrats,
so what would I know?

[MH1]

38. My point is that if you do not vote for the democrat you help the republican win

Just as a die-hard conservative who votes Libertarian, helps the democrat win.

I only campaign for democrats. But if I can prevent someone (who is NEVER EVER going to vote for my candidate) from voting for the major party opponent, I HELP MY CANDIDATE.

AS BY NOT VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRAT YOU HELP THE REPUBLICAN.

Fucking duh.

That's my point.

Clear now?

[bvar22]

55. Got it.

Its just a game to you.
Couldn't be clearer.

[NuclearDem]

73. And that's the kind of bullshit cover they count on.

Say what you will about Republicans, but they at least learned that sacrificing an election or two was worth it to shift their party in the direction they wanted and didn't buy that crap from their leadership.

[Maedhros]

95. If the Democrats keep doing unconscionable things

yet we keep electing them, they have no incentive to STOP doing the unconscionable things.

If the Democrats do bad things and then we refuse to support them when they do so, and they lose an election because of it, the next Democrat to run for office has great incentive NOT TO DO THOSE BAD THINGS.

I would prefer to stop bad things from being done in my name, therefore I will not support people doing those bad things whether they are Democrat or Republican or anything else.

It's not my fault that the majority of the Democratic rank and file is complacent.

Politics 101.

[creeksneakers2]

129. They tried that in 2000

They managed to hold off enough votes to let Gore lose. Did the Democrats all fall in line with the Green Party after that? I remember 2001 to 2004 as the most sucking up Democrats ever did for Republicans.

By creating a less reliable base you drive Democrats to the middle looking to make up the lost votes.

Want proof? Cross chart the Democrats with the safest districts with those who vote with the liberals the most often. You'll see that they highly correlate, while those from swing districts oblige Republicans from time to time.

[Maedhros]

164. I will vote for Democrats that earn my vote.

It's very simple.

[creeksneakers2]

168. Then its not about strategy

Is just about you getting your way or ignoring bad potential outcomes.

[CrispyQ]

149. Just because there's a D behind someone's name, doesn't make them a democrat. -nt

[RC]

65. The point is, some people will never vote for any Democrat, for any reason.

But if you can convince them to vote for a Liberation, that takes a vote away from a Republican.

The binary thinking on the Left is what is doing us in.
And Lefties, Liberals and such are suppose to be the smart ones? No wonder the Republicans are taking over.
I got what he was saying before I was done reading his post

[MH1]

36. Only people who are no way, no how going to vote Democrat - that is my point

If the person is a complete whack a doodle conservative and a lost cause anyway, I point out how awful their conservative candidate is for their beliefs, and encourage them to "vote their convictions". Because that's one lost vote for the Democrat's opponent.

The math is pretty simple, actually.

Any time a far leftie decides their convictions are too important to allow them to vote for the better of the two imperfect major-party candidates, they help the republicans win.

Any time a far rightie decides their convictions are too important to allow them to vote for the more conservative of the two imperfect major-party candidates, they help the democrats win.

This argument only applies in the 99.99% of elections in this country that are not subject to run-off, of course.

[leftstreet]

40. How does that work though?

You say 'Hi I'm ____ ,I'd like to encourage you to vote for Democrats'

They say 'no I'm a whack a doodle conservative'

You say 'why not try this Libertarian guy?'

So how does that NOT look like you're actually canvassing for Libertarians?

Weird

[whopis01]

141. It is one step removed - a misdirection

It does look like he is canvassing for libertarians. At least to the person who is never going to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Basically he is suggesting that the end goal is to get the Democratic candidate elected. Which can be achieved by both garnering votes for the Democrat as well as taking votes away from the Republican.

If you define canvassing for a candidate as trying to get the most votes possible for that candidate, then yes, at times he is not canvassing for the Democratic candidate. But as far as working to get the Democratic candidate elected, well he is doing that 100% of the time.

[Maedhros]

93. I know perfectly well how democracy works in the U.S.

When Their Guy does it we get outraged.

When Our Guy does it we cheer.

Because, after all, the important thing is to have Our Team in power. If a few hundred or thousand (or hundred thousand) innocents in some third world country have to die to make that happen, it's all good. OUR TEAM IS IN POWER!

I understand how your "democracy" works perfectly well.

[mick063]

134. Don't give up Maedhros

Don't ever give up.

I'll help.

[mick063]

133. You are the clueless one MH1

You are.

[rhett o rick]

146. If you are not liberal, what are you? What issues of the left dont you support? nm

[bvar22]

205. That is a common mistake made by Conservative Trolls.

They give themselves away when they attack "Liberals",
and unconsciously frame "Liberals" as a group that is separate from themselves.

It comes from too much programming by Limbaugh or Hannity.

[rhett o rick]

207. I always ask them to identify their principles and/or how they differ from liberals,

and I have never gotten a response.

[bvar22]

29. Thank You, Maedhros

Your comment is appreciated.

I can't believe we are watching the same insanity that happened in the 2001
Drumbeat for WAR in Iraq being replayed,
only THIS time with the 'Democrats" leading the charge.

John Kerry was on the Talking Heads this morning trying desperately (and not too coherently) to make this a case for US National Security.

[Martin Eden]

61. We are NOT "watching the same insanity ... in the Drumbeat for WAR in Iraq"

This is not the systematic campaign of lies and manipulation of the public through fear leading up to a boots on the ground regime changing invasion under false pretenses.

Not even close.

Nevertheless, I oppose the punitive strikes President Obama is calling for. Not because the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population doesn't justify some kind of action, but because I think the action being proposed will do more harm than good.

[bvar22]

112. None of this seems familiar to you?

Because I've heard to too many times.

Trust Us.
They are evil dictators who kill their own people !
Dead Babies!
We HAVE to do SOMETHING!!!
So lets drop a bunch of bombs and kill even MORE!
That'll show THEM who's boss!!

If you're not FOR the WAR in
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
[font size=3] Syria,[/font]

you're WITH
The Communists
AlQaeda
The Terrorists
Saddam
Qaddafi
[font size=3] Assad,
and you're FOR Dead BABIES!!!!

Terror! Terror! Terror!
Evil Dictators!
Dead Babies!
National Security!
Booga...Booga
USA....USA...USA
[/font]

Same Shit.
Different Bag.

Deja Vu...all fu**ing over again,
THIS time with The Democrats IN CHARGE!!

PT Barnum vastly underestimated the rate at which SUCKERS are born in America.


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Martin Eden]

122. Oh, it is painfully familiar

I've seen more than enough hyperbole and strawmen on the internet prior to this post of yours I'm responding to.

[Drale]

201. I didn't realize President Obama lied and got us stuck in a endless war in Libya

Oh that's right he didn't, he did exactly what he said he was going to do and got out. Libya and Iraq are not comparable at all.

[rhett o rick]

76. Bingo. Those here that blindly follow, dont have a clue what integrity is. nm

[bvar22]

16. Like the evidence and rationale supplied to justify this new war,

...your opinion of whom I support or don't support is baseless.


---bvar22
a loyal Democratic Party Supporter, Campaigner, and Activist for over 45 years.
THIS is MY "Red Line".

"Can't get fooled again."--- George Bush



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[sibelian]

85. It's nowhere near as silly and simplistic as military intervention.

But, you probably knew that.

[baldguy]

10. What if their opponant in the next election is the unholy spawn of Sarah Palin & Glenn Beckk?

Which, given the current state of the GOP is a distinct potentiality.

Never say never.

[bvar22]

18. That is what "they" are counting on.

Which one is the really bad guy?

[baldguy]

26. So -write off expanded health coverage, gay rights, labor rights, voting rights, etc, etc...

Not to mention the small chance that we might save a few Syrians?

This is not 2003. And Ralph Nader was wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Boy you seem to think a crazed far right Republican could instantly get anything done that they wish

Too bad Obama can't do that. 'Gay rights' you say, as if there was any national law to prevent discrimination in housing and employment, as if marriage equality was now the law of the land, all I hear is 'later' and 'we hope' about all of those things. In 2003, it was Kerry, Hagel, Biden and the others who voted for war who were so blood soaked wrong.
But carry on with your rant.

[MH1]

28. The people who will be hurt by that spawn winning the election

are wholly unimportant here.

One must stick to one's principles, ya know.

[rhett o rick]

78. What if the Republicans become honest and start representing the people? nm

[baldguy]

105. .

[rhett o rick]

136. Did you ask Sid if you could use his ridicule emoticons? How childish. nm

[baldguy]

139. This whole thread is childish.

The OP is throwing a tantrum because the real world doesn't conform to their sophomoric anti-intellectual ideal of purity.

[rhett o rick]

144. Your comment sounds like projection. You dont like the fact that he ISNT conforming

to what you think the "real world" requires. Sadly it looks to me like a lot of Democrats have lost sight of Democratic principles. I think he is showing integrity. And you choose to ridicule him for taking a stand which may differ from that of the authoritarian state.

[baldguy]

165. The OP is behaiving like a two-yr-old & you're expecting the GOP to start acting honest & honorable.

Who's projecting here?

[Drale]

203. and what if pigs fly out of my ass ./nt

[L0oniX]

14. I'm about done with politics and voting ...too many liars. The trust will never return. n/t

[Ocelot]

20. I will never support anyone who takes a NEOCON position

And predictably, Rove, Kristol, Lieberman, practically all of them are foaming at the mouth for Obama to strike Syria.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/neocons-push-obama-go-beyond-punitive-strike-syria

They just want to relive their Iraq "glory days" again. Fuck them and Freedom Fries.

[hughee99]

23. I'm pretty surprised by the number of people who seem to care more about YOUR vote

than how the Senate or House votes on this issue.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. x2

[iandhr]

27. So would you vote for white supremacist Rand Paul if he votes no?

[bvar22]

33. Almost every post that begins with

"So, you......" is a Strawman Logical Fallacy,
as your post effectively illustrates.

[iandhr]

39. You didn't answer the question.

Rand Paul will probably vote no.

You said "I will NEVER vote for or support any Senator or Congressman who votes "YES" on Military Intervention in Syria."

Rand Paul is one of the big time racists out there. My question is would you vote for an extreme racist if he votes no.

[bvar22]

58. Like I told another Smoke Blowing poster above...

...who wanted to divert to hypotheticals from their Fantasy World,
I'll cross that Red Line when I come to it.

Right NOW, influencing our DEMOCRATS to Vote "NO" in order to stop this insanity is the task at hand.

Please post your fantasies and diversions to another thread.

[iandhr]

67. Thats okay you just did answer the question.

[99Forever]

64. Binary idiocy.

It's all the rage with Neoliberals and Neocons, along with Teabaggers.

Simple minds, with extra simple thought processes.

[iandhr]

66. I'll indulge you.

How is it binary idiocy?


This poster said they wouldn't vote for anyone who votes to attack Syria.


Rand Paul has a fan club on this site despite being a racist. He has publicly opposed the Civil Right Act.



Why is it wrong to ask if they would vote for Paul if President if he votes no?

[99Forever]

68. What a pile of horseshit.

Name the members of the "Rand Paul Fan Club on this site."

That's the stupidest argument ever posted on this forum.

Congrats, you're #1.

[Puglover]

113. Sorry disagree.

"The map" will ALWAYS be #1.

[bvar22]

115. They can't help themselves.

It is pointless to argue with someone who believes that if you OPPOSE Military Intervention in Syria, you are automatically a Rand Paul Fan Club member.

That kind of failed logic is more appropriate for The Beavis & Butthead Chat Room at AoL than DU.

[totodeinhere]

118. Saying you will "NEVER vote for or support any senator or congressman who votes "YES" on

military intervention in Syria" doesn't obligate you to vote for someone else who has other positions that you disagree with.

[rhett o rick]

147. And you had to take it down into the crap. Your post is insinuation via question.

It's the technique that Faux News likes to use.

If you have a point, spell it out in a statement and not a silly question.

[newfie11]

32. Agreed

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. rec!

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Which is your prerogative

personally I'm not opposed in principle to military intervention. What I'm opposed to is unilateral military intervention without a vote, and without waiting for evidence. If the UN inspectors' report supports the contention that Assad's forces used chemical weapons, and Congress votes to authorise use of force based on that? I don't really object. Although I do question the effectiveness of a "limited response". In point of fact, if the Assad regime is using chemical weapons, then it is a situation that justifies boots on the ground and regime change. Which isn't going to happen because of the lingering memory of Iraq; Bush was the boy who cried "wolf" on Saddam, and now that Assad may actually have WMD and be using them? The reaction is "we don't care".

[gulliver]

43. How many times is this?

A lot of folks around here pledge and vow every few minutes. Surely every possible candidate has disappointed them in some way by now. Therefore, their "votes" are of no concern.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. ~50% support limited strikes

The fact that you need to present falsehoods to support your position is very telling.

[bvar22]

60. Your poll is noted.

It will be a week or so before any reasonably valid poll numbers appear.
I hope they poll me.

Even if 90% support bombing Syria, I will still oppose it,
and stick to my pledge.

[Motown_Johnny]

63. Your pledge is to help (R)s gain office.

I hope you realize that.


Nobody and nothing is perfect. I hope you will vote for every Democrat you can, even if you disagree with him or her on some things.

[bvar22]

70. So its all just a game to you?

Red vs Blue?
That all?


In 2002, I was working as a volunteer for Paul Wellstone's Senatorial campaign in St Paul shortly before he was killed. He was engaged in a neck & neck battle with Norm Coleman.
The Bush Administration scheduled the vote for The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq about three weeks before the election in November.

ALL the pundits, pollsters, Talking Heads, and Party Strategists told Wellstone that IF he voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution it would cost him the election.

Wellstone voted AGAINST the AUMF anyway.
The evening after the vote, when interviewed by local TV,
who ALL assumed he would lose the election because of his vote,
Wellstone was asked WHY he voted against it despite it costing him the election?
Wellstone answered,
"Sometimes you just have to do the right thing."

Funny thing, a couple of days after Wellstone STOOD on Principle,
he surged ahead in the polls, and was leading Coleman at the time he was killed.


I STAND in OPPOSITION to ANY use of Military Force in Syria by the USA
because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

My reasons are detailed elsewhere in this thread.


---bvar22
A loyal Democrat for over 46 years

[Motown_Johnny]

79. No, it is not a game to me. It is painfully real.

That is the point.


If you refuse to support a Democrat because of one vote then you will be helping his/her Republican opponent. You are therefore partially responsible for any and all consequences from that choice.

If you want to be a one issue voter then that is your right. Unfortunately it won't help the next time there is a vote on military intervention. Odds are any (R) will be worse than any (D).


FYI, I am not even registered as a Democrat. I am still an independent. Always have been and odds are I always will be. I don't play the Red v. Blue game. I just try to do what is right. There is a bigger picture here. I think you are missing it.

[HardTimes99]

102. Further to your point, our oh-so-brave House and Senate Dem leadership made a

Devil's Pact with Bushler to "take Iraq off the table for the 2002 mid-terms". Gebhardt thought Dems could win on the economy and God only knows what that gaggle of dryer lint Daschle thought.

[Art_from_Ark]

153. Daschle was probably thinking of that anthrax letter he and Senator Leahy got

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301417.html

[creeksneakers2]

135. You aren't loyal

if you don't support the party at the polls. We all disagree with some decisions. Loyalty is about sticking with the team when it isn't as easy.

[whopis01]

143. The problem is some candidates aren't loyal to the party

Sometimes there is no option for voting for a Democratic candidate. There is only an option to vote for the person with the (D) by their name or not vote for them.

Obviously the primary is the best place to deal with these candidates. But when that person (DINO, fake democratic, party opportunist, whatever you want to call them) gets elected it virtually negates the next primary - greatly reducing the chance of getting someone better in next time.

[woo me with science]

151. Absolutely wrong.

Political parties are tools to help people move government toward the values and principles and policy goals they support. People rally around parties because those parties work for certain principles. The principles, not the shell or colors of the party, are what merit loyalty. When parties stop fighting for the principles that drew people to them in the first place, they no longer deserve the loyalty of those people.

Part of the goal of Third Way, corporate propaganda all along has been to try to disconnect loyalty to the party from the values and principles that party was built around, and attach it instead to team colors and the brand, regardless of policy.

It's utter garbage, and it's not going to work.

[creeksneakers2]

163. We decide the values and principles together

Some of the people agree with you on some things and not on others. If everybody can't work together they all lose every time.

[woo me with science]

174. Demanding "loyalty" does not sound very much like "working together."

If the party wants to appeal to voters, it must respond to them. Unfortunately, the party we have has great financial incentives to respond to corporations rather than voters. The only leverage voters have to force a party to represent them is the power of the vote.

That is why we see the incessant, absurd attempts in the propaganda to disconnect "loyalty" from principles and policies and attach it to the team jersey, instead.

It's not working.

[creeksneakers2]

175. Who

"demanded" loyalty?

The party does respond to principles. They aren't always yours though. You have to share to participate.

There is more to the Democratic Party than a "team jersey." They've done countless good things over the years.

[woo me with science]

179. The absurdity of that response is an excellent place to stop.

Demanding loyalty:

"You aren't loyal if you don't support the party at the polls. We all disagree with some decisions. Loyalty is about sticking with the team when it isn't as easy."

"You aren't loyal."

"You shouldn't call yourself a loyal Democrat."

"We've tried the party loyalty approach here. We've had many successes over the years."

and then denying you demanded it:

"Who demanded loyalty?"

And then the cherry on top of appealing to the history of the party, as though the loss of those principles weren't exactly what voters are looking to reclaim here.

It's a marvelous illustration of how absurd and Orwellian the propaganda has become.

[bvar22]

155. Otrher countries and cultures have tried it YOUR way, putting Party above Principles.

It ended badly for them.

You should study a little History.

[creeksneakers2]

159. Well then

You shouldn't call yourself a loyal Democrat.

[bvar22]

169. I don't believe that DU is ready for self-appointed Party Commissars...

..patrolling the threads and deciding WHO is a "Loyal Democrat"
and Who is not.
I will gladly match my 46 years of Party loyalty and activism with whatever YOU can produce.

Like I mentioned above, other countries have tried the "Party Loyalty" approach.
It always ends badly.

[creeksneakers2]

177. I didn't "decide" anything

I offered my opinion on something. I'm not a commissar and you're not a victim, even if you want to pretend you are.

We've tried the party loyalty approach here. We've had many successes over the years.

[bvar22]

183. Many "successes" over the years?

Well, if you count moving the Democratic Party somewhere to the Conservative Right of Nixon, and even to the right of Reagan on some issues as "success",
then I agree. You HAVE been successful,
but I can't celebrate those "successes" because I'm a Loyal Democrat.

Why don't you try another Party Loyalty Oath campaign?
Then you and your friends can keep a LIST of who you think fails the Party Loyalty Test!
That should appeal to people who think like you do.

[font size=1]Psst.
That has been tried here too.
Didn't work out too well.[/font]


[font size=3]CENTRISM!...because its so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!

[creeksneakers2]

193. Why keep a list?

You want to pretend I have some power. I don't. I'm just another guy on the Internet. I don't "decide" things. I can't "demand" things. I can't form a group and a list (not that I'd want to.)

I don't think you are as loyal to Democrats as you say because you repeatedly advocate not voting for or donating to Democrats who don't match your ideology.
Most people, think that loyalty means sticking with something through thick and thin. I wouldn't call those people "people who think like me." They are people who have the normal definition of loyalty. Would you be a loyal husband if you moved out for a month every time you don't like what your wife cooks?

The Democrats did lots of great things when the had control of both houses and the presidency. One of those things was health care for all children. Another was a break on student loan payments. If you think those things are to the right of Reagan there must be very few Democrats who pass your ideological test.

I believe you are loyal to your ideology. But your belief that Democrats were as far left as you in the past doesn't match history. I read your FDR bill of rights and it matches your beliefs but I've never heard of FDR making an effort to give everybody a house.

[bvar22]

206. You insist that I'm not a loyal Democrat?

..and I believe you are a conservative alien from Planet Limbaugh
paid to post divisive BS on DU and attack Loyal Democrats.

SEE!!!
Anybody can do what you're doing.
It isn't hard at all to just make stuff up!

[woo me with science]

170. Loyalty is to principles, not a team jersey.

When a party abandons the principles it claimed to stand for, it is the party that has become disloyal. It's really not a difficult concept.

[totodeinhere]

119. One of the smartest things that the Democratic Party could do politically

would be to oppose military intervention in Syria. If you want Democrats to win elections opposing the Syria intervention is the thing to do. Plus it is morally the right thing to do as well.

[Number23]

184. thank you. I was going to make a similar point but figured why fucking bother?

The Amen Chorus couldn't care less about the facts and the rest of us couldn't care less about the half-witted fantasies that afflict the denizens of this forum.

[mrchips]

46. OK to Gas Kids

I don't have a lot of respect for people who deal in absolutes. If nothing is done Assad will not hesitate to use chems again and again. Gas makes no distinction between an innocent baby and a soldier with a gun. You do not survive an attack with Sarin. You die painfully and slowly. Somewhere between the extreme chicken hawks who want other people's kids to go and fight everywhere and doing nothing as you propose, there has to be a debilerative, measured and assertive response to crimes against humanity. You may be bored worth international barbarism, but it still exists. And you can not sit in your ivory tower and pretend it will all go away. It won't. I want conclusive evidence from the UN inspectors who were there. If it is true that Assad used sarin on his own citizens, the I am in favor of a response.

[neverforget]

48. Bombs and bullets make no distinction between an

innocent baby or a soldier with a gun. 100,000 people were killed with bombs and bullets before this gas attack. Seem mighty strange being outraged about those killed by gas but not those that have been killed by other means.

[bvar22]

52. #1 I haven't see conclusive PROOF that Assad is behind the attacks.

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I haven't even seen anything approaching a Smoking Gun.
The administration's Case for WAR is shakier than Colin Powell's Case for the attack on Iraq.

#2 Bombing Syria is NOT the only option.
Therefore, opposing a Military response is NOT endorsing the Gassing of Children despite your failed attempt to equate the two,
and I have no respect for anyone who would attempt to do so.

#3 Our Military is NOT the World Police.
It exists for the defense of the United States,
NOT to Teach the Bad Guys a Lesson, where EVER they are.

#4 We can't find the money for Meals-on-Wheels and Head Start.
We're BROKE, according to all the politicians who are also cheering for the New War.

#5 After ALL the LIES , destruction, and Hundred of THOUSANDS of unnecessary Dead Children WE have caused in the Middle East, we have absolutely NO Moral High Ground for deciding to killing even more.

#6 Joe Lieberman is FOR it, and "YeeHaw" is NOT a good Foreign Policy.

#7 Anything we do the "punish" Assad or weaken him
WILL help Al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim factions in Syria.

[HardTimes99]

104. Further to your point, if Karl Rove, Dan Senor, Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney are

for it, there's a 99.999999% probability it's a really, REALLY bad idea.

[bvar22]

117. That really is ALL one needs to know.

*

[HardTimes99]

121. I am so sick of the friggin hypocrisy and sanctimony. Turns out the U.S. was

actively assisting Saddam Hussein in the mid-80s in using nerve gas against Iranian troop concentrations during the Iran-Iraq War. We don't give a flying fuck about CBW or about Arabs and Persians killing one another, whether with CBW or conventional munitions, all the breast-beating, wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the Obama and Kerry apologists notwithstanding.

I'd be protesting against this shit if Bush or Reagan were doing it. And I'll be protesting against a Democratic administration for the first time ever in my adult life.

[navarth]

124. this. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

127. "Gas makes no distinction between an innocent baby and a soldier"

Yeah, um, neither do bombs.

[Initech]

47. I will sign it John Hancock style!

[panader0]

50. I have e-mailed my congressman (Ron Barber) to ask that there is no military intervention.

[sulphurdunn]

51. +1000

If we sit by and let them do this again we are as guilty and as degenerate as the war mongers, maybe worse, because they at least have the will to assert power. Most of us don't have the will to get off our asses to visit the refrigerator.

[mick063]

57. My mind was made up long ago.

Chained CPI, TPP, blanket surveillance, immunity for Wall Street crime.

I didn't need this Syrian issue to put me over the top.

[The CCC]

59. My decision is made.

I oppose any involvement in the Syrian civil war. However if the US Congress votes to get involved, at least it isn't just one man making that stupid decision.

[99Forever]

69. Agreed 100%. K&R

[NuclearDem]

71. Same here.

I'm tired of the Democrats simply using the "but the Republicans will win" as a gun to the voters' heads.

If they vote yes and subsequently lose an election, it'll be largely their own damn fault.

[ButterflyBlood]

72. So if Barack Obama could run again you'd support Rand Paul over him

Noted

[rhett o rick]

80. Can you spell strawman? nm

[mick063]

131. Rand Paul is worse than Obama and you know that

Last ballot I checked, there were multiple candidates.

Post all of the names/parties on the ballot and see what kind of response you might get.

You gave a push poll response.

[Plucketeer]

75. Here's my signature!

[forestpath]

81. K&R

[hrmjustin]

83. I respect your point of view but I could vote for someon who supported it as long as it just

remains a one or two day event. If it goes into a full scale war then that may be different.

[Egalitarian Thug]

86. K&R The interesting times are just beginning.

The team players are mightily upset with you, again.

I wish they'd vary their techniques a bit, this is monotonous.

[grahamhgreen]

87. Agreed. Nothing but Iraq redux. Another (neo) con job.

[quinnox]

88. I totally understand that principled and moral point of view

[MissDeeds]

89. Same here

Apparently this country has never met a war it doesn't like. For the love of humanity - explore other options, use diplomacy... too often our "leaders" shoot first and think later. Cooler heads should prevail.

[BainsBane]

92. So if the Republicans vote against an air strike on Syria?

You'll be voting GOP from now on? Or not voting at all?

[Catherina]

96. I've made it known to them. The ball is in their court now. No representation? No vote n/t

[customerserviceguy]

97. You have got to admit

that for someone who is usually credited with playing multi-dimensional chess, Barack Obama has managed to figure out how to probably lose the House of Representatives for us next year. The Rethugs get to vote no on something that won't hurt them (as zero national interest is involved here) while many of our people vote yes to save the President's face, yet lose their own ass at the polls.

Somebody remind me how brilliant the President is again...

[Doctor_J]

101. he's either the worst politician in history, or a republican

[Silent3]

145. You greatly overestimate the strength and intensity of oppositon to a strike on Syria...

...if you think "yes" votes from Democrats will greatly effect House elections next year.

Sure, a lot of people don't like the idea, but for the most part either they're too apathetic, or too ambivalent in the face of all the complications of the issue to hold it strongly against a politician for being for military action in Syria.

Most of America, and most of Democratic voters even, aren't much like DU.

[customerserviceguy]

181. I guess it depends on how things turn out

If nothing happens besides a few Syrian military personnel get blown to bits, the average American voter won't assign any credit or blame. However, if a US servicemember gets killed or captured, it's a different story. Then it will be a matter of consenting congresscritters trying to pin the blame on the President rather than themselves. I expect he'll accept it, the way JFK did with the Bay of Pigs.

[blkmusclmachine]

98. No "War For Profit."

Follow the $$$.

[Redford]

99. I don't know anyone who wants this war including Republicans

What cosmic bunny hole have we fallen thru that President Obama is seeking to bomb anyone?

[Swamp Lover]

103. Good for you bvar22.

I am also a member of the Green party. We're pleased to have you.

[HardTimes99]

106. I will be calling my rep Maxine Waters' office on Monday (again) and calling Boxer and

Feinstein to let my opposition be registered.

There is only one circumstance under which I could not sign your pledge and that would be if the U.N. Security Council were to authorize military intervention against the Syrian regime. Obama isn't even making a token gesture in that direction, thereby demonstrating his utter contempt and disregard for long-established principles of international law. In so doing, Obama has further attached himself to the Bush-Cheney NeoCon imperialist legacy. So consider my signature on your pledge hypothetically conditional.

[Curmudgeoness]

107. My first reaction was to agree with you.

I am totally opposed to getting involved in Syria, even though I find what is happening there despicable.

But I have yet to vote only on one issue or one position. I look at all the good and bad of each candidate, and have to make a decision based on that. No candidate ever agrees with me on everything, so I have to make some hard decisions.

Instead of drawing a line in the sand, I intend to let my Representative and Senators know where I stand, and how opposed I am to a yes vote on this. I may even tell them that they will lose my vote based on this. But when it is all said and done, I will do what I always do.

[bvar22]

116. You could not be more mistaken than to assume I am a One Issue Voter.

Every principled human being should have lines they will not cross.
I am at mine.

I am serious about my pledge,
and can only hope that most Democrats will do the same,
AND notify their appropriate representatives.

I will NOT follow them into another unnecessary WAR.
I will NOT support more killing in the Middle East in MY name.


Centrism!!!...because it is soooo EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!!!

[Curmudgeoness]

120. I am not assuming you are a one issue voter

but I am taking you at your word in the OP that this one issue will keep you from voting for certain candidates.

[tabasco]

108. Congratulations on that "don't have to think anymore" thing !

Makes things easier, doesn't it?

[Union Scribe]

166. As opposed to

unquestioningly supporting anyone with a D after their name no matter how often they lie to you or how little they represent the values that built the modern party? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[iamthebandfanman]

109. I will n/t

[NorthCarolina]

110. I couldn't agree more! nt

[Peacetrain]

111. Well you do what you have to do to get through the day

I do not sign pledges.. it has historically come back to bite me in the backside.

But I can appreciate your position.

[Not Sure]

123. I'll join you (nt)

[mick063]

132. Join us

We are growing every day.

[Blue_In_AK]

125. I'm not sure how Begich feels, but Murkowski is not thrilled with the idea.

[Autumn]

128. Everyone has a line that they will not cross, sooner or later.

I fully support your right to stand for your values and beliefs, and I respect you for your stance.

[B Calm]

140. I refuse to be a one issue voter.

[Roy Rolling]

142. What's missing

What's missing is logic. The "if" doesn't have a conclusive "then".

IF chemical weapons were used by Assad to kill innocents, THEN a war will make it better?

Maybe the IF can be ascertained, but the THEN is a crapshoot. And by crapshoot, that means the odds are infinitesimal.

War in Syria won't bring back the dead, will certainly result in more dead, and it's a crapshoot whether it will help the Syrian people.

It's ironic the market-based capitalists have a plethora of competitive alternatives to every problem, but war is the only answer for rogue governments.

That defies logic, the game is rigged.

[bvar22]

204. OH, but it is only "limited" unprovoked killing of Syrians...

...who haven't threatened us,
and can NOT threaten us.
"LIMITED"!!! because THAT makes it OK.

The Republicans want to kill MORE Syrians than the Democrats,
so the Great Compromiser is going to meet them half way.


"Come On, MAN!
Lets go kill some Syrians.
We promise to limit it to just a few thousand.
You fucking PURISTS always ruin ALL the fun!!!

If you don't support the "limited" killings,
then you support DEAD BABIES,
and are only helping the Republicans,
who are WORSE!!!"

[Martin Eden]

150. Your decision applies to the Democratic primary, correct?

In a close general election between a Democratic nominee who voted yes for military intervention in Syria versus a teaparty Republican who either voted against it or wasn't in Congress at the time, would you withold your vote from the Democratic candidate?

You do realize, I assume, that in a close election that could result in victory for the teabagger. Are you willing to inflict those consequences on everyone else to uphold your "principled" stand?

[Union Scribe]

167. The onus is not on voters to hold their nose while voting;

the onus should be on politicians not to smell so damn bad.

[Martin Eden]

178. Politicians should be better; got it.

Still doesn't answer my question, unless you think inadvertently tipping elections to teabaggers will achieve that result.

[mountain grammy]

152. Sounds like you're "boxing yourself into a corner."

[Beer Swiller]

156. What a fine, principled and courageous stand you have taken, Bvar22...

I salute you. My wife and I recently contacted our Democratic Congresswoman and let her know that we will be unable to support her in 2014 if she votes for authorizing military force in Syria. Period.

So you are not alone. If she does vote for the resolution, well, that doesn't mean we'll vote for the Republican. More than likely it means we just won't cast a ballot in that particular race, or maybe(gasp!) we'll vote for some independent with whom we actually agree, who was ALSO against this unnecessary and counterproductive intervention.

Like you, this is our red line.

You've hung in there and done a great job of countering every sports team analogy and "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" counterargument that was thrown at you. Good job, sir.

[bvar22]

173. Thank You, Beer Swiller.

Your comments are appreciated.


VIVA Modelo Negra,
but a cold Bud will do!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

171. As I've told my senators and congressmen, "Your votes decides my vote." I'm with you bvar22.

And, so is my wife.

[bvar22]

202. Thank You!

While my Wife & I are willing to Stand Alone on this issue,
it is comforting to have the company & support of people we respect,
though there was little risk on this issue because it is so clearly defined after the years of OPPOSING it when the Republicans did it.

Can you imagine how DU would look today if Bush were beating the Drums for MORE WAR and Senseless Killings?
I can't wrap my mind around HOW someone can change their minds and opinions on matters like Aggressive, Unprovoked WAR depending on who happens to be sitting in the White House.

How SAD it is to try to envision going through life without an Internal Moral Compass, and instead let those decisions be made by something a capricious as which TV Personality or Political Party is sitting in the Oval Office.


"Oh Gosh.... nasty shit going down in Syria.
Let me check with Party HQ to see how I should feel about this."

[DFW]

172. Wish I could but I can't

If it's a choice between someone who votes both for cruise missiles in Syria and health care for Americans as opposed to no missiles in Syria (and solely to thwart Obama) and no health care for Americans, I'm still voting for health care for Americans.

I'm all for a perfect world. I just don't think I live in one.

[Beer Swiller]

180. And just who is for health care for Americans?

Nobody in Washington, and that includes the White House. Mandatory health insurance, with no cost controls, I might add, is NOT mandatory health care.

I find your argument deeply flawed.

[DFW]

186. I find your assumptions deeply off base, so we're even

What people are for and what they can achieve are two different things. My opinion that the White House is FOR health care for Americans comes from an hour I had with one Barack Obama last year. Maybe he told you something different in the meantime? I suppose I can't discount the possibility. Lacking the powers of a benevolent (or otherwise omnipotent) dictator, Obama knows he'll never achieve universal health care during the lifetime of his administration, but he wants to start paving the way rather than doing nothing.

As for who is also for it (and is, alas, not in Washington) there is Howard Dean. Howard is a personal friend, and I take his word to me over anything he told you unless he has changed his views in the last week. I confess to not having talked with him in the last seven days.

It's easy to pontificate over what you think what people want, but you're on more solid ground sticking to what (and whom) you know. In such situations where all I have is an opinion, I try to preface my posts with what I think, or how things appear to me.

[bvar22]

189. Mandatory Health Insurance purchased from "Private" Corporations =/= Health Care.

It IS a Republican scheme for funneling Public Money into Private Pockets.
SEE: RomneyCare

If you would like to compare Mandatory Private Health Insurance to a Democratic Health Care Plan,
see LBJ's Medicare.

[gopiscrap]

176. thank you-I stand with you

[rhett o rick]

185. I applaud your integrity. However, to say "never" is a huge thing.

I am not saying that I disagree. I said I would never support a Democrat that bowed down to Georgie Bush and his rush to the IWAR.

But we need to have a discussion on "the better of evils" theory. This isnt the place but I struggle with this theory. For some it's an easy decision, but not for me. Does one vote against their principles because of this theory?

Best of luck.

[bvar22]

188. At THIS point,

I would like to see as many loyal Democrats as possible
contact their representatives with the "NEVER" pledge.

The Democratic Caucus needs to feel some pressure or they WILL take the path of least resistance and wimp out again.
As long as they believe we have no where else to go,
they WILL keep moving steadily to the Right under the protection of the Lesser of Two Evils aegis.

We have Done the Lesser of Two Evils Thing for 25 years now,
and have wound up to The Conservative RIGHT of Nixon and even Reagan on some important issues.


[font size=3]Go ahead and DO it.
What is The Liberal Base going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahaha![/font]

Everybody is entitled to change their minds later,
but I'm as serious as a Rattle Snake today.
No More!

[mick063]

187. The centrists don't need the "black helicopter" left.

Remember?




Let's have a field day every time we see the plea for GOTV.

We need to rub some faces in the mud. Just returning the favor for non-election years.

[DCBob]

192. I suspect you and others like you will soon have no one left to vote for.

[bvar22]

197. If that turns out to be the case,

then so be it.

I will NOT stand with those who promote Aggressive Wars,
or believe that "limited" killing of innocents is OK.

Our founders warned against what the Leadership of the Democratic Party is actively promoting.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[DCBob]

209. That's admirable but it seems an exercise in futility.

I assume your motives are an attempt to move the party left. I highly doubt that will be the effect. If anything the party will move more centrist without folks like you participating in the process. Of course you can vote for or not vote for whomever you want. I just think you are doing the cause more harm than good.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

198. Believe it or not --

there is ALWAYS someone to vote for if winning is not your only criteria. I have never been at a loss for a candidate who aligned with my views and goals for our country,

[Efilroft Sul]

194. From one Guy Fawkes avatar to another — signed.

[bvar22]

208. Thanks

Our neighbors in Latin America have given us a Blue Print for "CHANGE".

When the American Working Class & Poor realize WE have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the 1%Elite and their Mouth Pieces in Washington,
then WE can have "change" too!

As long as they can keep us divided by the Red v Blue Kabuki Theater
and choosing The Lesser of Two Evils,
the Status Quo will prevail.

VIVA Democracy!
We outnumber then by 100,000 to 1,
and our numbers grow every day.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

196. I voted for a couple of Democrats -

who supported the IWR. It was not one of my proudest days, casting my votes for them, but Kerry was a better option than Bush. I stopped voting for Feinstein (for a multitude of reasons, including IWR) and now Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Boxer will have to do without my vote if they supports this madness. I will NOT tolerate being lied to in the manner Pelosi is doing right now.

I join your pledge.

I am done with enabling war mongers, especially lying warmongers. Basta!

[bvar22]

199. I also voted for Kerry in 2004,

...under the impression that if the Democrats held the White House
we wouldn't be involved in War Mongering, International Bullying, Aggressive Wars, War Crimes, and Ugly American Exceptionalism.

I now see I was wrong.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

200. It's a helluva thing to witness. :(

I have never been so disgusted in my life as watching O, Kerry, & Pelosi pushing such BULLSHIT on Syria.

The lowest point for the Democratic Party since the IRW.

This very well may be the end point for me and the Party.