Bombing Iran, Democrats, mice and cotton

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

[crashtech]

You quoted me correctly in the PM you sent me regarding this, but I see you won't do me the honor of that here in public. I asked a question, and you have answered it.

The kind of attitude Panetta displays can only result in our shame. Someday heads will roll over this preemptive attack bullshit.

I don't know why you would ever think this to be a persuasive argument for Republicans, though. If Dems like Panetta are taking a more deceptive approach, it will just be lauded as diplomacy ala "speak softly and carry a big stick."

[Mr. Perfect]

[crashtech]

Apologies, I meant to say "completely." It's clear from the wording of my original post that I was not denying some Dems were involved in the preemptive war doctrine, and would join you in condemning them. Is that in fact what you are doing, or is this just more points scoring?

[Mr. Perfect]

The whole point ct is that the Democrats will never tell you in advance, unless you get lucky as we did here. This is not new thinking on their part, this is what they have felt internally all along. They just don't say anything. And all their bleating minions who shrieked like pigs at the slaughter about warmongering hegemonic neocon John McCainites bombing Iran will keep absolutely silent, silent as a mouse peeing on cotton.

But all along they were totally ok with this policy. So they are just morally bankrupt liars.

In all honesty I am rather confused at your responses here, I always figure I am the most transparent person alive. I don't even know what you're talking about in terms of "point scoring" and whatnot.

My agenda is simple, and that is the eradication of the Democrat party. The reason is quite simple, they will sell themselves as a Bush alternative and then turn around and greedily hunt for the spoils of war when they get the opportunity.

They simply are not an honest political partner to any of us. They need to go. All the guilt politics of the 2nd Bush term that many people fell for, it was all lies. Many people who gave up on the GOP over it merely handed the keys to a new set of warmongers.

So the point is the Democrats have to go. They will never deal honestly with any of this. The GOP, think what you will, we will have an honest debate but we need the clarity of removing a dishonest entity from the body politic, the Democrats. There is no choice.

And the only way to do that is to vote straight party GOP ticket and have the Democrats destroyed.

Then a new party can form, a crashtech/Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura/Ross Perot party, and we can have an honest debate about our foreign policy without having to deal with devious ulterior motive party, the Democrats.

But the only way to do that is to completely stonewall the Democrats and bankrupt them like the USSR.

To that end what drives me up the wall with you is when you critique the GOP for something both parties do, it depresses the GOP and by default the Democrats gain, and you are actually part of perpetuating the problem, whether you realize it or not.

Inside the GOP there are loads of people who want to change course. Inside the Democrats the proof is that there are not. They had their chance, time to go.

We need you, and we need you to vote straight GOP on the ballot. We need you desperately. My efforts may grate you but the stakes are too high, I have to get your attention somehow, this has to be sorted out.

I have a plan. There is a plan. There is a way forward whether I'm pulling the strings or not. End the Democrats, let a new party emerge and let's put this leftist/progressive/liberal scourge to bed for good.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

You are really advocating a Jesse Ventura party? The man who instigates half his fights because he doesn't know how to keep his composure?

Forget Mice and Cotton; this is like having two parties for Mice and Men.

...still not seeing Democrats as some sort of enemy....

[crashtech]

Honestly I don't care about the contrived contrasts in positions between Democrats and Republicans nearly as much as I used to, since I don't vote for either of them. I'll vote for Ron Paul, but it is just a formality at this point that he is a Republican, as it is obvious that the Republican establishment wants nothing to do with the man. When I vote for Ron Paul, I will be voting for a libertarian conservative, not a Republican.

If you think my criticism of Republicans for being overly militaristic is wrong, just say so. Maybe you think it is OK if Iran gets bombed. Since all but one of the Republican candidates support such action, there is a high probability you will be voting for someone who wants to bomb Iran preemptively. Is there anyone but me that senses just a slight bit of hypocrisy in your post and your position here, since if you really gave a damn about the preemptive war doctrine there would be no way for you to support the GOP, which has practically made it a central plank.

But that's not what this is about. It's about you making it personal about me, as if picking on me for not making my criticisms in a manner that you approve will bring me back into the fold. You're not being persuasive. Rather, it is mildly irritating, and we are probably boring anyone else who happens to be unfortunate enough to read this thread.

[Ibrahim]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]

[Mr. Perfect]