PDA

View Full Version : GOP: Absolutely No Hope For The GOP!




reduen
12-03-2008, 09:15 AM
Below is a perfect example of why the GOP is hopeless! It is a conversation (via e-mail) between myself and a guy who claims that he wants to rebuild the GOP from South Carolina...! His name is Dean.

Read it from the bottom up and tell me what you think..


Chris,

I wish you well. Hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

My focus is rebuilding the GOP to save America, not debating others who are just too far out for m to comprehend. You will receive no further mail from me.

Thanks,

Dean



--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Chris

From: Chris
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached
To
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 1:54 AM


Frankly Dean, it is you who are mistaken and it appears that there is no hope for you. In my opinion it is people like you that are the reason that the GOP is dead. Yes I said dead and until you guys quit falling for all the lies and misinformation being spread around about how Iraqis and Iranians, and Syrians, etc.. and everybody with a rag on their head wants us dead because we are free you will never come to the truth...(Actually there is probably more truth to this today than before 9/11 because of this war of course..)

You say your goal is the safety of America and that you have also seen countries destroyed and civilians killed, maimed, and displaced in large numbers. There is absolutely nothing you will not do to see that this does not happen here in our country.

Why do you think that they are mad at us? Why do you think that they hate us enough to blow themselves up just to kill us? We have done this very thing to them in Iraq etc..

You seem to intentionally miss the point that no country did anything to us nor could they or would they. Why is this?

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 innocent people and injured 450 in his Oklahoma bombing but did we go bomb Ireland or the Vatican because he was of Irish Catholic decent? Where were the 9/11 terrorists from?

They were heartless criminals who are said to be part of a criminal organization and they should have and still should be dealt with in this fashion period. Would that not be enough blood for you soldier?

Call me crazy but I am one that believes that we should treat other nations as we would like to be treated and that this is the real key to our security here in the United States.

Do you really believe that my number one goal is not to protect my family? (We do live here in the United States of America by the way) I believe that this war has made us less safe than we were before it started.

I consider myself a respectable man within my community, and have very respectable friends here and I can tell you that we all fear our own government much more than we will ever fear Islamo-Fascist!

Again, why Iraq Dean? You might want to check your "facts" again on the "550 TONS of yellow cake uranium from Iraq to Canada".

Do you really believe anything that comes from the Bush administration?

By the way, you are not the only one with blood on your hands. However, mine have since been washed and I am just one who has "seen the light".

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean
To: Chris
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached


Chris,

Yes, I read your letter carefully. I have received several letters from people who were conservative, except for the strong national defense that was a vital part of the Reagan revolution - and a vital part of the winning GOP coalition.

I am working on a response to those folks. However, I will give you the basic overview of my current thought. Bear in mind as you read this, my first goal is the safety of the United States of America. My second goal is to build a winning Republican party because I believe that is the best way - and the only non-violent way - to make America strong, free and prosperous.

I do not mean this to be unkind but I do not believe you share my goals. We are also going to disagree on another fundamental point. If I am reading your letter fairly, you are basically a pacifist who does not believe in war.

I have been to war three times. Once to Korea and twice to Vietnam. Nobody hates a war any more than a man who has seen one up close, as I have. However, I have also seen countries destroyed and civilians killed, maimed, and displaced in large numbers. There is absolutely nothing I will not do to see that this does not happen here in our country.

You are simply mistaken about the need for the war on Islamo-fascism and the fact that every part of it world wide is a wholistic and interconnected network.

You have also been misinformed about Weapons of Mass Destruction. We now know very clearly that the Saddam Hussein government did have a large and sophisticated program. One of many proofs was the shipment about a month ago of 550 TONS of yellow cake uranium from Iraq to Canada. That alone is clear proof of a nuclear program.

There are two things that you are very correct about. The Bush administration has left our southern border wide open which has exposed us to the probability of our enemies smuggling weapons into this country just as drugs are smuggled in.

You are also correct that President Bush has grossly mismanaged the conduct of the war, starting with the appointment of Don Rumsfeldt as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeldt was a bumbling idiot who got us bogged down when we should have been - in the words of Elvis presley - Taking care of business quick as a flash.

I will give you a more detailed response later. I am swamped with hundreds of e-mails. (I also had to stop for three phone calls while writing this.)

Best Wishes,

Dean





From: Chris
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached
To: Dean
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 6:39 PM


Very good stuff in this attachment Dean, I agree with 100% of it but did you even bother to read my last response to you below?

I am very Pro-Life but not just American lives. I believe that the Iraqi's that have died because of this war deserved to live also...

Chris R.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean
To: Chris
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached


See attached & give feedback.





From: Chris
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached
To: Dean
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 12:19 PM


Dean,

Though I agree with much of the material you sent me here, I am afraid that it is a hopeless cause.

I have recently decided to associate myself with the Constitution Party for many of the very reasons you have pointed out. I used to consider myself a Conservative Christian Republican but I have found that these three words have somehow taken on an entire different meaning than they use to have.

Consider this:

Republican - Use to mean that you were for small government and low taxes basically.

Conservative - Meant that one supports the preservation of the heritage of our nation and culture, and prudence in government spending and debt.

Christian - Use to mean that you were a believer and follower of Jesus the Christ and that you obeyed His commandments and followed His teachings.

The war in Iraq and the corporate bailouts showed me that today's "Conservative Christian Republicans" are nothing like the above anymore and from your information you sent me, I gather that you and I would disagree on a few very important topics.

The Iraq war goes against all of the Conservative Christian Republican principles I have laid out above. I can't believe for a second that those who call themselves "Conservative Christian Republicans" like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee can not see this clearly and yet they still support it to this day. (I gather that you are a big Palin/Huckabee fan..) There is nothing Conservative, Christian, or Republican about it..

Christian - I personally do not believe that a Christian is able to go to war and a Christian leader may not declare war but even if you could make a case for a "Just War" scenario, the Iraq war could never be considered a "Just War".

Conservative - The founders of this nation would have never approved of the Iraqi war. It is nothing less than foreign interventionalism at its finest and as Cheney himself pointed out a decade before this war, the cost would be immeasurable in both lives and dollars...

9/11 - A. Was not carried out by any country or by any army who represented a country or religion in general.
B. Was carried out by a bunch of Saudi Arabian Extremists or Al-Qaida. (Who could have been stopped by the way, had our government not been so incompetent.) Not Iraqi or Iranian, or Syrian, or Pakistani etc...

Iraq and/ or Saddam - A. Did not harbor any Al-Qaida members before the war.
B. Had no WMD's that would threaten the United Stated.
C. Got any WMD's or chemical weapons that they ever had from US! (United States of America)

The very weapons that Hussein used against his own people, he got from the United States when he was our buddy and we already knew that he had used them many years before the war in Iraq!

Do you or anybody else really think that we could not have just taken Saddam out of power without killing thousands or millions of other innocent people and destroying billions worth of infrastructure?

Tell me again, what was the reason for going to war there in the first place?

Does 3 or 4 thousand American deaths on American soil justify 3 or 4 thousand or more American deaths on foreign soil and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?

Again, why Iraq and Pakistan and not Saudi Arabia where the terrorists really came from?

Exactly what gives our Republic the right to go around the world using a Dictator to promote Democracy?

There is much more that I could say about this war but really no need to continue....

You see, I have become disillusioned with just about all career politicians for the simple fact that they all lie... (Ron Paul being one of the very few exceptions to this case.) One can never know where they really stand until after the damage has already been done because of this fact...

Did you notice how poorly Huckabee treated Dr. Paul during the debates and the campaign in general? Why would a Christian man treat someone in such a manner? (Especially another Christian...)

I look forward to your response..

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Shopping Money : see attached


Chris and Sonny,

Please keep in touch with me. Also, please read the attachments to this letter and give me your feedback and advice.

Best Wishes,

Dean

Danke
12-03-2008, 09:19 AM
Are these private emails? You may want edit and remove his name...

Truth Warrior
12-03-2008, 09:45 AM
The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

klamath
12-03-2008, 09:59 AM
"Frankly Dean, it is you who are mistaken and it appears that there is no hope for you. In my opinion it is people like you that are the reason that the GOP is dead. "

You had a good exchange going until you injected the above sentence. I agree with all your issues but the personal attack on Dean shut down an honest debate of the issues.
I find it unethical to post private emails with names on a public forum.

Elwar
12-03-2008, 10:05 AM
This Dean guy was willing to have a discussion...you were being argumentative.

That's no way to win anyone over.

Don't let your feelings influence a debate. Reason wins every time.

paulitics
12-03-2008, 10:11 AM
The guy makes his decision based on emotion, then tries to meld together some dubious info to support his irrationality. He lacks critical thinking skills. It's amazing that somehow those who attacked us, Saudi Arabians, are completely disregarded as relevant. He' pissed that the facts clash with his made up and distorted version of things spewed forth from the neocon media. In his mind he thinks you are a liberal, or pacifist, because his network of neurons have been programmed to think that way (it took many years of programming). He shuts you off due to cognitive dissonance occuring when confronted with the facts.

I notice the same thing when talking to liberals about global warming, or the 2nd amendment as the "conservatives" on defense. The media feeds propaganda 24/7 on these two issues, so its like you are fighting this regurgitated crap, which often gets people very heated due to the emotinoal hot buttons that are programmed in.

What I do is usually just ask them a bunch a questions, let them talk 90% of the time, and watch them put their foot in their mouth. Its important to back off and let them marinate any new info you are giving them. When I woke up, it was because of info that I didn't know was presented to me and I had to find out if it was true.

John of Des Moines
12-03-2008, 10:15 AM
In a nutshell please.

pacelli
12-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Would that not be enough blood for you soldier?

While I admire your persistence and tenacity, in my opinion you crossed the line when you sent him this. These kinds of inappropriate remarks are the exact reason why Ron Paul supporters were labeled as nuts & never taken seriously.

slacker921
12-03-2008, 11:16 AM
I agree with the others. While you might be right on all points it came across as offensive to him. Pick your battles, don't try to make all points at once, and respect the other person no matter how wrong they are.

acptulsa
12-03-2008, 11:23 AM
Of course, many a time we've all encountered the person who gets rude because you won't reinforce all the 'conventional wisdom' and the official media spin. And that makes it harder to keep your cool.

But if they get rude and you do keep your cool, each and every one of the spectators around proclaims you to be the winner. And some of them actually do think about what you said later.

Imperial
12-03-2008, 12:03 PM
1) You must always adjust your argument for the audience in question. Do you start talking about 9/11 Truth in the middle of a debate in from of Southern Evangelical voters? No. Similarly, you must realize the GOP has been spoonfed this mentality on foreign war as well.

I would have left out attacks on soldiery and the pathos you threw in about blood on one's hands. Look, being a soldier you have to be strong. You have to rise above the pain you inflict on a certain level. Otherwise, one could not bear the pain.

If I am FDR, and started talking to Thomas Jefferson about how my economic policy would spend trillions to stimulate the economy via a central banking institution with little accountability, what would Jefferson's reaction be? I bet he would be condemning him. It is stupid move. However, if one started saying how maybe a national central bank could check state banks and be accountable directly to unified people, and emphasizing the boom and new jobs and wealth without the spending, Thomas Jefferson would be more inclined to an honest debate.

Honestly, it looks like you fell for his bait to get you morally inflamed. Not that I think he meant to trigger your strong reaction. That just shows how much we must make our efforts to educate those who have heard double-speak all their life. If we sound too radical, people stop listening.

fr33domfightr
12-03-2008, 01:03 PM
I think you might consider writing back and apologize if your emotions got the better of you. That you really wanted him, and the GOP, to re-examine it's positions, and if they truly match with our Founding Fathers vision for the States.

Ronald Reagan basically had all the talking points of Ron Paul, so if he doesn't understand that, he's missing something.

I'd suggest when you write back, quote him with the words of Ronald Reagan, that support your position. Don't ask him to reply back, just ask him to actually be a critical thinker. Ask him to give some thought about his position, in light of what Ronald Reagan stated, and the results we see today, and list those things. Reagan was for a strong military force, in light of the bungled deal with Carter, but that's different from U.S. aggression.

I would cover strong military, balanced budget, smaller government, our fiscal mess (AND THE UNFUNDED MANDATES) which take us $54 Trillion in debt, with over $10 Trillion now. Just present facts only. Let him decide how to handle them.


FF

reduen
12-03-2008, 01:59 PM
Are these private emails? You may want edit and remove his name...


This is politics, should anything really be private on this matter? I think not. Dean is not hiding some place, hoping somebody will not find out who he is or what he is doing.

Dean openly solicited me to help him "Rebuild the GOP” and sent me some info to review and critique. Yet he would not address my objections directly....

reduen
12-03-2008, 02:04 PM
"Frankly Dean, it is you who are mistaken and it appears that there is no hope for you. In my opinion it is people like you that are the reason that the GOP is dead. "

You had a good exchange going until you injected the above sentence. I agree with all your issues but the personal attack on Dean shut down an honest debate of the issues.
I find it unethical to post private emails with names on a public forum.

What you have quoted here is not an attack, nor was it taken that way. There was no debate to begin with because after soliciting me for his cause, Dean did not have the decency to address any of my objections directly...

This material is not of a private nature or it would not have been posted here...:rolleyes:

reduen
12-03-2008, 02:10 PM
While I admire your persistence and tenacity, in my opinion you crossed the line when you sent him this. These kinds of inappropriate remarks are the exact reason why Ron Paul supporters were labeled as nuts & never taken seriously.

I meant every word of that and it was only someone being that blatant with me that woke me up!

I am sorry that it offends you in some manner but this is life and death we are talking about here, it is a very serious matter… (To me anyway..)

angelatc
12-03-2008, 02:20 PM
This Dean guy was willing to have a discussion...you were being argumentative.

That's no way to win anyone over.

Don't let your feelings influence a debate. Reason wins every time.

Yes, that's what I thought too.

Either way though, the neocons aren't just going to hand anybody the keys to the GOP. Whoever wins the base will have to fight for it, and they will need to understand that the people in charge now are never going to agree with the people challenging their authority and their control.

Minuteman2008
12-03-2008, 02:23 PM
You have to "disarm" the guy by vigorously agreeing with him on certain conservative items, maybe right-to-life, fiscal responsibility, or immigration, and then politely bring up how invading Iraq goes against every conservative notion we have. You'll never change peoples' minds by getting emotional and calling them names; in fact they'll just get more firmly entrenched in their position.

There should be room for liberty minded people in the Republican party. The trick might be to let people know that we all have some common ground before addressing the war issue. The GOP has lost its way on nearly every issue, not just national defense, so there are plenty of things to criticize and get people like him on your side before even mentioning the Iraq war, which is obviously hugely important.

reduen
12-03-2008, 02:24 PM
Finally, thank you all for your comments so far but something I have noticed is that some of you seem to be missing the fact that this guy solicited me for help and then would not address my objections directly.

Why even bother to ask someone’s opinion if you do not really want to hear what they have to say? If he really wanted my help to rebuild the GOP, don’t you think that he should take the time to address my reservations?

In his mind, the matter seemed to be over even before it started. :(

reduen
12-03-2008, 02:26 PM
The guy makes his decision based on emotion, then tries to meld together some dubious info to support his irrationality. He lacks critical thinking skills. It's amazing that somehow those who attacked us, Saudi Arabians, are completely disregarded as relevant. He' pissed that the facts clash with his made up and distorted version of things spewed forth from the neocon media. In his mind he thinks you are a liberal, or pacifist, because his network of neurons have been programmed to think that way (it took many years of programming). He shuts you off due to cognitive dissonance occuring when confronted with the facts.

I notice the same thing when talking to liberals about global warming, or the 2nd amendment as the "conservatives" on defense. The media feeds propaganda 24/7 on these two issues, so its like you are fighting this regurgitated crap, which often gets people very heated due to the emotinoal hot buttons that are programmed in.

What I do is usually just ask them a bunch a questions, let them talk 90% of the time, and watch them put their foot in their mouth. Its important to back off and let them marinate any new info you are giving them. When I woke up, it was because of info that I didn't know was presented to me and I had to find out if it was true.


Bingo!

klamath
12-03-2008, 02:29 PM
What you have quoted here is not an attack, nor was it taken that way. There was no debate to begin with because after soliciting me for his cause, Dean did not have the decency to address any of my objections directly...

This material is not of a private nature or it would not have been posted here...:rolleyes:

Unless you left out some of the Emails, Dean answered some of your points from his prospective and said he was going to answer you in more details when he got more time. When you tell someone that there is not hope for them in an argument you are in reality telling them the lines of communication are closed and that is what he did.

reduen
12-03-2008, 02:42 PM
Unless you left out some of the Emails, Dean answered some of your points from his prospective and said he was going to answer you in more details when he got more time. When you tell someone that there is not hope for them in an argument you are in reality telling them the lines of communication are closed and that is what he did.

Ok, I do see your point but in my opinion it was already over by then...

I did leave out the information that was attached to the emails because it was very lengthy (mostly very good though) so that could have made a difference.

klamath
12-03-2008, 02:55 PM
Ok, I do see your point but in my opinion it was already over by then...

I did leave out the information that was attached to the emails because it was very lengthy (mostly very good though) so that could have made a difference.

The thing is we all agree with you, not Dean. It is very easy to get emotional but you must realize that in his mixed up world he is probably still seeing the twin towers coming down and thinking about the images of the people jumping to their death. He hasn't yet been able to step back and evaluate the whole picture.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-03-2008, 02:57 PM
I am going to have to agree with others here and say that your last e-mail to him was not the best way to win an argument or to make a point. You cannot expect someone who has had years of brainwashing to automatically understand our point of view. I know you are not seeking my advice but I would apologize for your tone in the last e-mail and tell him that you are just very dedicated to turning this country around and to restoring the Republican Party and you let your passions get the best of you. Our economy right now is a great place to start showing him how our side has been right all along and then you can start to tackle issues such as border security, national defense, etc. It is not easy but if we are going to get anywhere than we are going to have to treat people with respect and kindness even if we know that they are drasticaly wrong. The second we blow up and resort to name calling and personal attacks than we only reinforce the negative opinions that the neocon side of the party has of us.

Imperial
12-03-2008, 03:07 PM
You have to "disarm" the guy by vigorously agreeing with him on certain conservative items, maybe right-to-life, fiscal responsibility, or immigration, and then politely bring up how invading Iraq goes against every conservative notion we have. You'll never change peoples' minds by getting emotional and calling them names; in fact they'll just get more firmly entrenched in their position.

There should be room for liberty minded people in the Republican party. The trick might be to let people know that we all have some common ground before addressing the war issue. The GOP has lost its way on nearly every issue, not just national defense, so there are plenty of things to criticize and get people like him on your side before even mentioning the Iraq war, which is obviously hugely important.

I do the same thing with a friend of mine. He complains all the time about "liberal policies", and is a huge interventionist. However, I agree with him and cultivate agreements with him on many issues, like gun rights and spending. He pretty much agrees with lots of things I say, and I would say if he were a theoretical president I would have a decent shot at a position in him administration. The key is knowing our battles.

So, +1 here.

pacelli
12-03-2008, 03:09 PM
I meant every word of that and it was only someone being that blatant with me that woke me up!

I am sorry that it offends you in some manner but this is life and death we are talking about here, it is a very serious matter… (To me anyway..)

No worries man, it didn't offend me. I'm just thinking about 2010 & how to adjust the strategies.

cheapseats
12-03-2008, 03:10 PM
Don't let your feelings influence a debate. Reason wins every time.



I am going to have to agree with others here and say that your last e-mail to him was not the best way to win an argument or to make a point. You cannot expect someone who has had years of brainwashing to automatically understand our point of view. I know you are not seeking my advice but I would apologize for your tone in the last e-mail and tell him that you are just very dedicated to turning this country around and to restoring the Republican Party and you let your passions get the best of you. Our economy right now is a great place to start showing him how our side has been right all along and then you can start to tackle issues such as border security, national defense, etc. It is not easy but if we are going to get anywhere than we are going to have to treat people with respect and kindness even if we know that they are drasticaly wrong. The second we blow up and resort to name calling and personal attacks than we only reinforce the negative opinions that the neocon side of the party has of us.

I am conflicted about this. Leaving aside these specific emails and broadening the discussion to the bigger picture of Saving America or Restoring Liberty -- I'da said they're one and the same, but that's me -- is that really your experience, Elwar, that Reason prevails? Because it hasn't been mine.

Has it been your experience, jdmyprezetc, that treating people with respect and kindness is bringing them 'round to Reason? Because it hasn't been mine.

The Powers That Be, many of whom belong in prison, do not CARE about the chorus of complaints, grievances, injustices and abuses.

They are making money doing things the way they're doing them, they are above the fray of the economic fallout, and they're in power.

They have the power. They write the laws. They have the courts. They have the judges. They have the prisons. They have the guards. They have the money. They have the banks, plural. They have the weapons. They have the transportation. They have the exit strategies. They have the assets. They have the military. They have the DRIVE, still. That's because money and power are more addictive than alcohol and cocaine.

Think back to a grade school or high school bully. They are NEVER talked out of being a bully. They are never NICED out of being a bully. Someone moves away, or someone gets hurt, or the bullying goes on.

What's the plan?

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-03-2008, 03:19 PM
I am conflicted about this. Leaving aside these specific emails and broadening the discussion to the bigger picture of Saving America or Restoring Liberty -- I'da said they're one and the same, but that's me -- is that really your experience, Elwar, that Reason prevails? Because it hasn't been mine.

Has it been your experience, jdmyprezetc, that treating people with respect and kindness is bringing them 'round to Reason? Because it hasn't been mine.

The Powers That Be, many of whom belong in prison, do not CARE about the chorus of complaints, grievances, injustices and abuses.

They are making money doing things the way they're doing them, they are above the fray of the economic fallout, and they're in power.

They have the power. They write the laws. They have the courts. They have the judges. They have the prisons. They have the guards. They have the money. They have the banks, plural. They have the weapons. They have the transportation. They have the exit strategies. They have the assets. They have the military. They have the DRIVE, still. That's because money and power are more addictive than alcohol and cocaine.

Think back to a grade school or high school bully. They are NEVER talked out of being a bully. They are never NICED out of being a bully. Someone moves away, or someone gets hurt, or the bullying goes on.

What's the plan?

I agree with you in that there are certain people that you literally have to beat over the head with the message but it is not always like that and I would wager that it would turn off the vast majority. I know I did a lot of canvassing during the official campaign and while I will never know exactly how many votes I won, I did win quite a few invitations back to homes to speak with people some more by simply being kind and respectful. There are quite a few people who now respect the message and even acknowledge some of the major problems within the G.O.P. because someone took the time to explain in detail what we stand for. As one old guy I talked to several times during the campaign once told me "You know, this actually makes a lot of sense". Now imagine if canvassing was done by knocking on doors and when they answer they are met by a Ron Paul supporter saying "Hey there neocon, you are stupid and YOU are destroying America, we know better - that is all" and then they walk away. How would that be productive?

LibertyEagle
12-03-2008, 03:33 PM
I think you might consider writing back and apologize if your emotions got the better of you. That you really wanted him, and the GOP, to re-examine it's positions, and if they truly match with our Founding Fathers vision for the States.

Ronald Reagan basically had all the talking points of Ron Paul, so if he doesn't understand that, he's missing something.

I'd suggest when you write back, quote him with the words of Ronald Reagan, that support your position. Don't ask him to reply back, just ask him to actually be a critical thinker. Ask him to give some thought about his position, in light of what Ronald Reagan stated, and the results we see today, and list those things. Reagan was for a strong military force, in light of the bungled deal with Carter, but that's different from U.S. aggression.

I would cover strong military, balanced budget, smaller government, our fiscal mess (AND THE UNFUNDED MANDATES) which take us $54 Trillion in debt, with over $10 Trillion now. Just present facts only. Let him decide how to handle them.


FF

I think this is a good idea. Plus, I'd hit on his statement about having a strong national defense by explaining, in a better way than this, that those who he is pledging allegiance to have brought America to its knees financially and thusly, have created a situation that our very country's survival is up to the whims of countries like Saudi and China, because we need their money to even pay the interest on the debt. Does he know about the Treasury dept. holding seminars on SHARIA finance? That ought to set him off and it was done under a GOP administration. The impending bankruptcy of our country, caused by the actions completely opposite of the fundamentals of conservatism, has done more to endanger America and our national defense, than any ragheads could EVER DO.

LibertyEagle
12-03-2008, 03:34 PM
This whole war issue is what drives off a bunch of people, who really agree with us on the fundamentals of everything else. I've run into this many times too and I haven't yet found the way to break through it. There has to be a way though. Maybe we all could work on it.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-03-2008, 03:38 PM
This whole war issue is what drives off a bunch of people, who really agree with us on the fundamentals of everything else. I've run into this many times too and I haven't yet found the way to break through it. There has to be a way though. Maybe we all could work on it.

I ran into that quite a bit as well and I would counter by stating that we lost sight of Bin Laden because we focused on attacking another nation. Many people would agree with that. They would change their opinion while still getting to enjoy their lust for war.

LibertyEagle
12-03-2008, 03:44 PM
I ran into that quite a bit as well and I would counter by stating that we lost sight of Bin Laden because we focused on attacking another nation. Many people would agree with that. They would change their opinion while still getting to enjoy their lust for war.

lol.

I've been posting on this other board and I had everyone finally get with me on the economy, etc., but yesterday, I posted the articles about the military on our soil. One, in particular, an active military guy, has gone ape. Most of these people see no problem with it, but then again, a lot of them are retired military. I personally find it disgusting and extremely frustrating.

Peace&Freedom
12-03-2008, 06:19 PM
This whole war issue is what drives off a bunch of people, who really agree with us on the fundamentals of everything else. I've run into this many times too and I haven't yet found the way to break through it. There has to be a way though. Maybe we all could work on it.

As I have said before, 9-11 emotion trumps reason. Pro-war forces will
continue to exploit this tendency with emotional appeals to "but
THEY did it to US on 9/11," which will continue to overwhelm the
logical case we make for non-intervention, because the whole flow
of the debate stays tightly within the context of 'THEIR' alleged
intervention. We ignore the 12,000 pound 9-11 elephant at our peril.

If we separated 9/11 from foreign policy in general by pointing out
the evidence of false flag intelligence activity and the need for a
new inquiry, it would short-circuit the interventionist's emotional
meme of 'stopping those towelheads.' Unless we realize the framing
of the current foreign policy debate is anchored around 9/11 as an
intervention against us, there can only be limited success in our
promoting NON-intervention as a response.