Conservative Confusion on Iran

[TreyP]

"The process whereby the neoconservatives were able to hijack the Republican Party's foreign policy has been dissected and analyzed frequently over the past two years. Perhaps more disturbing in the long term, however, is their success at hijacking the label "conservative." When broadcast journalists Brian Williams and Katie Couric describe someone as a conservative Republican, they are frequently actually referring to a neoconservative. When a Sunday morning talk show has a "conservative" on a panel to provide "balance," he is more often than not a neoconservative. This access to the media as the purported standard-bearers of conservatism has proven useful, as it enables the neocons to continue to have a major voice on policy in spite of being wrong on every major issue. It also empowers them to constantly spin and refine their story, exonerating themselves while fear-mongering that there are new dangers that have to be dealt with, more dragons to slay.

Most Republicans, like most voters, prefer not to think very much about what the "conservative" label means. Conservatism means supporting traditional ways of doing things domestically, i.e., not embracing radical change, and a strong defense policy overseas. Apart from that, there is not a great deal of refinement in the public's view of conservatism. For many, a desirable defense and security policy is precisely what the neocons have created, a vengeful lashing out at the rest of the brown-skinned, non-Christian, ostensibly terrorism-fostering world using the maximum military force to complete the job. In line with that simplistic worldview, many self-described conservatives continue to defend President George W. Bush and his neocon foreign policy only because they believe it important to support a Republican president come hell or high water, not because they have considered the issues or the ups and downs of the policies that are being pursued. They take it on faith that Iran is bad and will have to be dealt with firmly, because, after all, that is what they are constantly seeing and hearing on television and reading in the newspapers, mostly coming from the same neocons who brought us Iraq.

But there is no free ride, politically speaking, and bad policies eventually result in a price paid at the voting box. As the Iraq war is now disapproved of by more than two-thirds of Americans and further involvement in Iran is equally unpopular, Republicans and conservatives will have to rethink American their foreign policy if they ever hope to regain majority party status. In so doing, they should return to the conservative principles that were delineated by the Founding Fathers, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan prior to the hijacking of the conservative label under George W. Bush.

The first principle for conservatives is that war is a "last option" to be employed when all else fails and there is a direct and imminent danger to the United States. U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen are a precious commodity not be wasted in pointless wars, and our armed services are not an appropriate instrument for rebuilding or reforming other nations. Iran's form of government is none of our business, and Tehran does not currently pose a level of threat to the American people that would justify military action. Ronald Reagan put it best: "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor." Barry Goldwater recommended that U.S. foreign policy "make it clear to all nations of this world that we have no desire to expand our territory or to impose our type of government or our way of life on any other people." Prior to George Bush, Republicans and conservatives have traditionally been reluctant warriors. In the last century, the First World War, Second World War, Korea, and the escalation in Vietnam all took place under Democratic administrations with considerable dissent from Republicans.

In line with a reluctance to go to war, conservatives have always believed that the first line of defense is diplomacy. Diplomacy supports the national interest without unleashing the unintended consequences that arise from warfare. As Russell Kirk put it, "A sound conservative foreign policy in the age which is dawning should be neither 'interventionist' nor 'isolationist'; it should be prudent." Diplomacy between the United States and Iran has not really been tried but is being dismissed by both the Bush administration and presidential candidate John McCain as naïve. It is time to do the proper and prudent conservative thing, which means sitting down and talking to Iran, with no preconditions and with all issues on the table.

Conservatives also recognize that while the first victim in war is certainly truth in the media, the second victim is invariably civil liberties and the Constitution. War means armies, police, taxes, big government, and restriction of personal freedoms. It erodes fundamental rights and nearly always means intrusion into the private lives of citizens through laws that remain in place even after the foreign threat has disappeared. As James Madison wrote, ""If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. … Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 put it even more starkly, calling on Americans to avoid "the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." If Iraq, Afghanistan, and the largely fictional global war on terrorism produced the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the loss of FISA court controls, and the unitary executive concept, it is useful to consider what a more serious war with Iran might bring. The United States does not need to dismantle more of the Constitution to fight yet another war of choice, because doing so will not make us any safer, only less free.

Fiscal responsibility, a strong dollar, and maintaining the economic well-being of the citizens are also traditional conservative agendas. The war with Iraq has been an economic catastrophe, coupled with a sinking dollar, spiraling debt, and surging oil prices. Much of the U.S. public debt is now in the hands of an adversary, China. A war against Iran will bring a terrible "energy shock" and will only make things worse for the average American. It could sink the U.S. dollar forever as the world flees from its use as a reserve currency. As Ron Paul put it, "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

Finally, conservatives traditionally understand that foreign and defense policy should ultimately benefit the United States and its people. The government should be empowered to protect American citizens against foreign threats and terrorism, not to create new terrorists through ill-advised interventions overseas. Our nation, which has always been respected for its fair dealing and its liberties, is now looked down upon by most of the world due to its bullying and intransigence. John Quincy Adams said that "America does not need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Attacking Iran would unleash a new wave of international terrorism and would convince much of the world that Washington is intent on changing governments willy-nilly and exterminating Muslims. America does not need another 9/11. Referring to the terrorism problem, Pat Buchanan has written, "We need to remove the motivation for it by extricating the United States from ethnic, religious, and historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any finality." George Washington put it another way in his Farewell Address, that the United States should "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." George Washington's advice, once revered by all true conservatives, was good in 1796, and it is still good today."


Food for thought.....

[JrSyko]

Amazing post Trey. Very well thought out, backed up and logical. Quite the opposite of the BS some people on here post in an effort to distort the through and ellicit a reaction which does nothing more than further divide the populous. Politics needs a major overhaul. Too bad more people won't read this.

[Sheaco]

Trey,
Do you have the Public School Cliff Notes version? lol

[DEZERTSUB]

"they take it on faith that Iran is bad"????
Dude, seriously, if you fail to PLAINLY SEE why Iran is bad, you need Lasik more than I do. And I need it pretty bad!

Yeah Trey, AMAZING post.:rolleyes:

Who was the author by the way?

Did it come from the Washinton Post? New York Times? Seattle Post-Intelligencer???

[randy s]

what are you talking about donny?

[DaveGores]

This access to the media as the purported standard-bearers of conservatism has proven useful, as it enables the neocons to continue to have a major voice on policy in spite of being wrong on every major issue. It also empowers them to constantly spin and refine their story, exonerating themselves while fear-mongering that there are new dangers that have to be dealt with, more dragons to slay.

Would you be so kind as to supply some clarification here?

For many, a desirable defense and security policy is precisely what the neocons have created, a vengeful lashing out at the rest of the brown-skinned, non-Christian, ostensibly terrorism-fostering world using the maximum military force to complete the job.

This a very ignorant blanket statement about our foreign policy. We have many allies in the Muslim world. However, our current administration has decided the time to appease terrorism is over. I, for one, support such a concept.

In line with that simplistic worldview, many self-described conservatives continue to defend President George W. Bush and his neocon foreign policy only because they believe it important to support a Republican president come hell or high water, not because they have considered the issues or the ups and downs of the policies that are being pursued.

I think blind obedience could be better related to the Democratic party. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

They take it on faith that Iran is bad and will have to be dealt with firmly, because, after all, that is what they are constantly seeing and hearing on television and reading in the newspapers, mostly coming from the same neocons who brought us Iraq.

Faith, huh? I listen to what Ahmadinejad says. When he says he wants to "wipe Israel off the map, and God willing, the United States", I take such a threat seriously.

But there is no free ride, politically speaking, and bad policies eventually result in a price paid at the voting box. As the Iraq war is now disapproved of by more than two-thirds of Americans and further involvement in Iran is equally unpopular, Republicans and conservatives will have to rethink American their foreign policy if they ever hope to regain majority party status.

If that's the case, why is Barack Obama polling even with John McCain. Historically speaking, this election is the Democrats' to lose. If what you said is true, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of polling data.

The first principle for conservatives is that war is a "last option" to be employed when all else fails and there is a direct and imminent danger to the United States. U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen are a precious commodity not be wasted in pointless wars,

We've been down that road. Diplomacy has always been the first step. You can only try and convince your enemies to back down for so long before force is required.

Pointless war? That's pretty inflammatory. According to whom? The Democrats in Congress who voted for this war before they abandoned the troops and began to waive the white flag? Statements like these are extremely insulting. The fact that you fail to see the threats we face or bother to understand our reasons for going to war, does not mean our President doesn't value the lives of our soldiers.

Iran's form of government is none of our business, and Tehran does not currently pose a level of threat to the American people that would justify military action.

At this point it does not. Our government has been doing everything they can to keep Iran from reaching that point.

Ronald Reagan put it best: "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."

When have we started a fight?

plomacy between the United States and Iran has not really been tried but is being dismissed by both the Bush administration and presidential candidate John McCain as naïve. It is time to do the proper and prudent conservative thing, which means sitting down and talking to Iran, with no preconditions and with all issues on the table.

When have we failed to use diplomacy? The world told Iran they could not enrich Uranium and they're doing it anyway. What is there to talk about? Hopefully our economic sanctions can help bring this conflict to a peaceful resolution.

If Iraq, Afghanistan, and the largely fictional global war on terrorism produced the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the loss of FISA court controls, and the unitary executive concept, it is useful to consider what a more serious war with Iran might bring. The United States does not need to dismantle more of the Constitution to fight yet another war of choice, because doing so will not make us any safer, only less free.

Fictional global war on terror? It's difficult to have discussions with people who live in an alternate reality. Muslim terrorists kill innocent people all over the world; people who have nothing to do with America or the western world. Burying your head in the sand will not make these evil people go away.

Finally, conservatives traditionally understand that foreign and defense policy should ultimately benefit the United States and its people. The government should be empowered to protect American citizens against foreign threats and terrorism, not to create new terrorists through ill-advised interventions overseas.

How else would you like to protect Americans from terrorism. Leave them alone and hope they see how silly Jihad is? Give me a break. The President has done quite the job of protecting the American people from the threat of terrorism.

Our nation, which has always been respected for its fair dealing and its liberties, is now looked down upon by most of the world due to its bullying and intransigence.

We have always had enemies and we always will. This is nothing new. The goal of our government should be to do what is right for America, not make sure the rest of the world approves.



This entire piece is full of ignorant blanket statements. It truly demonstrates the leftists' disdain for Conservatives and the unwillingness to acknowledge the threat of Islamic terror.

[Contender]

Amazing post Trey. Very well thought out, backed up and logical. Quite the opposite of the BS some people on here post in an effort to distort the through and ellicit a reaction which does nothing more than further divide the populous. Politics needs a major overhaul. Too bad more people won't read this.

The post is so full of blanket liberal positions and talking points it can't be taken serious.

Who is the source of this propoganda piece?

Brian Williams, Kate Couric...LOL...

Gotta love the Ron Paul quoutes, LOL...

Food for thought...you have to be kidding.

[Vtr_Racing]

Amazing post Trey. Very well thought out, backed up and logical. Quite the opposite of the BS some people on here post in an effort to distort the through and ellicit a reaction which does nothing more than further divide the populous. Politics needs a major overhaul. Too bad more people won't read this.

Well, some would say this is a BS post. Food for thought? Maybe? thanks for the post. I agree with JrSyko, Politics needs a major overhaul. When I hear the monikers like "Neocons" and the others, my radar definately goes up. Its just the flavor of the month in my mind.
The poplulous is divided because we all different views on things. Nothing new there. I liked it(dont agree with most) but dont think there is anything life shattering in it.

[Offspring]

He cut it from here

http://www.nohillaryforpresident.com/hillary-president-forum/general-political-discussions/4224-the-hijacking-of-the-conservative-label.html

Philip Giraldi is the guy who penned it.

Philip Giraldi is a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a regular contributor to www.antiwar.com in a column titled “Smoke and Mirrors” and is a Contributing Editor who writes a column called “Deep Background” on terrorism, intelligence, and security issues for The American Conservative magazine. He has written op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain, has appeared on “Good Morning America,” MSNBC, National Public Radio, and local affiliates of ABC television. He has been a keynote speaker at the Petroleum Industry Security Council annual meeting, has spoken twice at the American Conservative Union’s annual CPAC convention in Washington, and has addressed several World Affairs Council affiliates. He has been interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Britain’s Independent Television Network, FOX News, Polish National Television, Croatian National Television, al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, 60 Minutes, and Court TV. He prepares and edits a nationally syndicated subscription service newsletter on September 11th issues for corporate clients.

[Contender]

Well, some would say this is a BS post. Food for thought? Maybe? thanks for the post. I agree with JrSyko, Politics needs a major overhaul. When I hear the monikers like "Neocons" and the others, my radar definately goes up. Its just the flavor of the month in my mind.
The poplulous is divided because we all different views on things. Nothing new there. I liked it(dont agree with most) but dont think there is anything life shattering in it.

With all due respect Marc, you sound like a hand wringing liberal who is in constant turmoil over the imangined nuances of people avoiding what is right or wrong. The fundamentals of life are binary no gray areas there.

[TreyP]

Sorry guys, I did not write that. It was from Philip Giraldi's website. I didn't get a chance to finish the post and actually thought I had only hit preview. :o I've been too busy the last week.

But I still think he has an interesting opinion. Also I find his comparision of the neocons/conservatives to be quite accurate. Both Pat Buccanon and W.F. Buckley have pointed this out.

[R_TAYLOR]

There is no confusion on Iran.The little dictator wants Israel gone and the US right behind them.So simple to understand.

[DEZERTSUB]

There is no confusion on Iran.The little dictator wants Israel gone and the US right behind them.So simple to understand.

Seriously. Simply put, this is the way it is. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Isreal a "smoking corpse" If that's not an implicit way of saying "we think you deserve to die" then what is???

Where is the confusion???

Oh that's right, I'm confused. I want America and it's allies to stand strong in the world. Makes me "narrow-minded"
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT:rolleyes:

[MattV]

Where is the confusion???

Oh that's right, I'm confused. I want America and it's allies to stand strong in the world. Makes me "narrow-minded"
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Narrow minded or not, you are absolutely correct.

The author of the piece seems to easily float between reality and an alternate universe. Iran has been calling us the "Great Satan" and advocating the destruction of Israel and United States since President Carter abandoned them in 1979, helping to usher in the current era of islamic terrorism. Denying the fact that they hate us will not make us, or anyone else safer. Giving them what they want will only provide them with a sense of legitimacy they don't deserve.

The issue with Iran and those they sponsor and support has a lot more to do with their expressed and acted upon desire to kill us than it does the color of their skin, or their religion.

[scottm]

The position that 'neocons' are some influentual group pulling the strings in washinton is wrong. Bush and just a couple other simpletons like Rumsfeld ('Incuriuos ideologues' is how Geenspan described them) were convinced by a single Iraqi expatriot that we could walk in there with 80K troops, and saddams army would fold and the population would welcome us with roses. But real experts told them very clearly that going in would require 250K troops, that saddam was a counterbalance to iran, and that simmering sectarian conflicts would be released. Someone quoted statements by eisenhower about how treacherous and delicately balanced the mideast is. Every other country in the world besides england and a few others told us not to and declined to join. Hell even his dad, the first pres GHW Bush told him not to do it. They would here none of it, and went in anyway with far too few troops. It was unquestionably a mistake; a blunder of pure hubris. I personally believe Bush did it to collect Saddam's head for Daddy's trophy wall, since GHWB was criticized for not finishing the job in '91 (though it was right to not go into bagdad in 91 too. There is nothing wrong with gathering consent and operating within it, as GHWB was good at).

Saddam's rule would have eventually ended, and the sectarian problems would have eventually come out, but then international consent would allow more effective measures against Iran and silence blowhards like Michal Moore .

[pappawheely]

"Our nation, which has always been respected for its fair dealing and its liberties, is now looked down upon by most of the world due to its bullying and intransigence".

Personally, I dont give a rats *** what some pansy euro weenie or third world dictator with a overinflated self opinion thinks. Let them take the lead, shoulder the burden and get criticized like we do. Most of this global ill will is a media fabrication. If Obama gets elected within hours all the worlds problems will dissapear, as far as you know.

[pjc]

Amazing post Trey. Very well thought out, backed up and logical. Quite the opposite of the BS some people on here post in an effort to distort the through and ellicit a reaction which does nothing more than further divide the populous. Politics needs a major overhaul. Too bad more people won't read this.

Travis, your fawning, "BLOWJOB" for Randy aside, the article is nothing more than a op-ed, hit piece with almost no tangible substance on policies surrounding Iran and little to nothing in focus on the title of the rant.

This is no surprise and your misguided concept that the article is meaningful is totally predictable.

No matter, Iran will set their own course towards conflict and if people of your mindset have your way, it will be in enough time for Iran to have many more diplomatic bargaining chips at the table - primarily those that glow.

Unfortunately, it's a safe bet to say that the political left in the US, too include those on this on-line abode very likely think that nuclear proliferation is "a fair thing" and, that all countries should have such weapons to deal with the "evil, bully US".

Do correct me with explanation, if you think different.

[Alex Paterson]

Are we saying we should just head on over to Iran as well and see what kind of mischief we can get into?

Alex

[pappawheely]

Are we saying we should just head on over to Iran as well and see what kind of mischief we can get into?

Alex


Yeah, Iran is just minding it's own business. No need to think about them. We'll wait till they nuke Israel. Then we'll tell them they're bad and wring our hands and sigh loudly.

[Alex Paterson]

Yeah, Iran is just minding it's own business. No need to think about them. We'll wait till they nuke Israel. Then we'll tell them they're bad and wring our hands and sigh loudly.

No, I believe we can't just sit by and let Iran do what they please but messing with them right now would be an awfully bold move on our part and we better have more backing and support from other countries. The whole thing just boggles my mind why these countries can not figure out how to coexist. Pesonly I feel if we invaded Iran we would be getting into something we could not come out of, let alone "win".

Alex

[DaveGores]

No, I believe we can't just sit by and let Iran do what they please but messing with them right now would be an awfully bold move on our part and we better have more backing and support from other countries. The whole thing just boggles my mind why these countries can not figure out how to coexist. Pesonly I feel if we invaded Iran we would be getting into something we could not come out of, let alone "win".

Alex

This is exactly why we're avoiding attacks at all cost. The way we're doing this is through economic sanctions in hopes the convince the government of Iran to back down. If sanctions don't work, I'm not so sure it will be the U.S. that attacks Iran first.

[pjc]

Are we saying we should just head on over to Iran as well and see what kind of mischief we can get into?

Alex

No, as mentioned and contrary to the leftist rant that Randy parroted, the activities in place today are good enough. Besides, Israel will make the first bomb runs.

[pappawheely]

No, I believe we can't just sit by and let Iran do what they please but messing with them right now would be an awfully bold move on our part and we better have more backing and support from other countries. The whole thing just boggles my mind why these countries can not figure out how to coexist. Pesonly I feel if we invaded Iran we would be getting into something we could not come out of, let alone "win".

Alex

Unfortunately Alex, they are not concerned with our timetable. Some people are unreasonable. Thats how wars get started. The reason 911 happened was because threats were not taken seriously. We can't afford to make that mistake again.

[Roddd]

No, I believe we can't just sit by and let Iran do what they please but messing with them right now would be an awfully bold move on our part and we better have more backing and support from other countries. The whole thing just boggles my mind why these countries can not figure out how to coexist. Pesonly I feel if we invaded Iran we would be getting into something we could not come out of, let alone "win".

Alex

Thats what England said about Germany in 1939. Whoops. Oh, and co-existing? Do you know what Iran does to its homosexuals? They publicly hang them. Homosexuality is a felony in Iran punishable by death. And you don't think we should stop them from enriching uranium?

[DA Rhino]

Where is the confusion???

Oh that's right, I'm confused. I want America and it's allies to stand strong in the world. Makes me "narrow-minded"
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT:rolleyes:


First of all I have no comment on the article that Trey posted.;) Most of the articles written are spun one way or another to justify a political opinion for either the Democrats or Republicans.:rolleyes:
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?pictureid=1631&albumid=258&dl=1215609235&thumb=1

What this country needs is a leader who is looking out for its citizens and not a political party.;) Obviously it's not going to happen in 2008!:rolleyes::eek::mad:

History is our best resource for accurate and true information.;):rolleyes: Before all of you Monday morning quarterbacks give your opinions, for anyone who hasn't seen the series originally on PBS "The War" ;) http://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_home.htm

I suggest you read the book or view the DVD.;)

This is a documentary by Ken Burns on World War II and how the country came together after the bombing of Pear Harbor.:mad::eek:http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=1612

A truly eye opening video with actual footage and interview's from military personnel and their families who served our country.
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?pictureid=1462&albumid=136&dl=1215609277&thumb=1

After viewing this I would like to hear your thoughts, comments and opinions on this and today's politics and why protecting not only America's freedom as well as the worlds freedom is so important.http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=1626

The news is the worst thing that the USA has and is bringing our country down with the BS spins they provide daily to the people who watch.
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=1623

Just a few things to think about!;)
http://homepage.mac.com/sbooneaz/iblog/C1416780514/E20070612190916/Media/smallflag.jpg

DARhttp://www.race-dezert.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=1630

[JrSyko]

Travis, your fawning, "BLOWJOB" for Randy aside, the article is nothing more than a op-ed, hit piece with almost no tangible substance on policies surrounding Iran and little to nothing in focus on the title of the rant.

This is no surprise and your misguided concept that the article is meaningful is totally predictable.

No matter, Iran will set their own course towards conflict and if people of your mindset have your way, it will be in enough time for Iran to have many more diplomatic bargaining chips at the table - primarily those that glow.

Unfortunately, it's a safe bet to say that the political left in the US, too include those on this on-line abode very likely think that nuclear proliferation is "a fair thing" and, that all countries should have such weapons to deal with the "evil, bully US".

Do correct me with explanation, if you think different.

You've lost your mind. "Fawing blowjob?" WTF? You continually make yourself just look silly.

And I by no means think that Iran should have nuclear weapons but I also think invading Iran is a suicide mission. However I don't even care to discuss this with you anymore. Your never ending hatred and malcontent for those who differ from you has infected this website and its not even fun to discuss politics anymore. Everything turns personal with you and you continually plague this site with your BS posts. Its so bad that they had to create a whole separate section just to handle all the crap you post. Think about that before you post more of your political BS next time.

And before you cite "all the repuation marks" that "prove otherwise" just know that there are way more people who are absolutely disgusted with all the crap you post then you know. They are just to afraid to post for fear of suffering your "wrath."

[dan200]

You've lost your mind. "Fawing blowjob?" WTF? You continually make yourself just look silly.

And I by no means think that Iran should have nuclear weapons but I also think invading Iran is a suicide mission. However I don't even care to discuss this with you anymore. Your never ending hatred and malcontent for those who differ from you has infected this website and its not even fun to discuss politics anymore. Everything turns personal with you and you continually plague this site with your BS posts. Its so bad that they had to create a whole separate section just to handle all the crap you post. Think about that before you post more of your political BS next time.

And before you cite "all the repuation marks" that "prove otherwise" just know that there are way more people who are absolutely disgusted with all the crap you post then you know. They are just to afraid to post for fear of suffering your "wrath."

Sometimes I think all of you should run for congress. You would be a perfect fit. A bunch of people with differing opinions that would rather blame the countries problems and the inability to solve them on the other and never compromise, ever, for the good of everyone.

You guys never get any where with each other yet by the existence of the new "purple section" you have all (not just pat) caused an expansion of the RDC site. Kinda like starting a new government agency. Luckily RDC is still free. If the site became a pay site because this sections' need to be policed on a full time basis by mods(because of cheap shots and name calling by all parties)it would feel like a tax.

Keep up the back and fourth but lets finally get somewhere with out the name calling, OK?

[miguelitro]

If you have never read "Whirlwind" by James Clavell it will give you good insight into Iran and the muslim/middle east mind set.
Otherwise, carry on and keep it civil:D

[pjc]

You've lost your mind. "Fawing blowjob?" WTF? You continually make yourself just look silly.

Travis, you provided unadulterated praise to Trey's for posting a hit piece that was so bad, it barely spoke of the content in it's title.

What is "silly" is your infantile action of denial.


However I don't even care to discuss this with you anymore.


-WAJ!


Your never ending hatred and malcontent for those who differ from you has infected this website and its not even fun to discuss politics anymore.


Travis, you are showing your weakness again. As usual, I welcome real debate from you any time. There can always be a first on your part.


Everything turns personal with you


No, that is your first line of defense when you repetitively cannot mount an argument.


and you continually plague this site with your BS posts. Its so bad that they had to create a whole separate section just to handle all the crap you post. Think about that before you post more of your political BS next time.


1) It's election year.
2) The post count is growing in this forum and it sure is not solely by my hand.

Now, you claim the "plaguing posts" that you do not like are all 'BS", but you praise Trey's hit piece as "Amazing, very well thought out, backed up and logical."

Now that is really silly and it is 100% typical of you. Are you really so arrogant and intolerant that you think that people do not see your self serving, double standards?


there are way more people who are absolutely disgusted with all the crap you post then you know. They are just to afraid to post for fear of suffering your "wrath."

Says who? You? Just because you said so?

Is this like the scientific consensus on MMGW?

[DA Rhino]

1) It's election year.
2) The post count is growing in this forum and it sure is not solely by my hand.

Now, you claim the "plaguing posts" that you do not like are all 'BS", but you praise Trey's hit piece as "Amazing, very well thought out, backed up and logical."

Now that is really silly and it is 100% typical of you. Are you really so arrogant and intolerant that you think that people do not see your self serving, double standards?



Says who? You? Just because you said so?

Is this like the scientific consensus on MMGW?

pjc you have a lot to say did you happen to skip my post?;)


DAR:cool:

[pjc]

pjc you have a lot to say did you happen to skip my post?;)


DAR:cool:

yep, I am on vacation and connectivity time is tight. I'll read it later and try to reply tonight but cannot promise as many guests are arriving for the weekend.

[randy s]

No, as mentioned and contrary to the leftist rant that Randy parroted, the activities in place today are good enough. Besides, Israel will make the first bomb runs.

wrong again pat. i've not offered any commentary on this thread other than a sentence to donny. have another cervesa cabron.

[randy s]

you know what pat. i think if you had a decent wet dream, you'd catch clap.

[DEZERTSUB]

wrong again pat. i've not offered any commentary on this thread other than a sentence to donny. have another cervesa cabron.

Confused me a bit too.

How are ya buddy?

I tried giving you a call the other night but got no answer. Hope all is well with you Randy!!!

[pjc]

Sorry Randy, my bad. It's just too easy to get you and Trey confused.

[TreyP]

Sorry Randy, my bad. It's just too easy to get you and Trey confused.

Seems to be your MO, always confused.....

Better luck next time.