• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

To those who plan on voting for a Republican in '08

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: fallout man
Pabster, darling. You are like the fungus which seems to pop up between my pinky and ring toe every several weeks, despite treatment. Just fucking stop already. Please.
Go crawl back under your rock, troll.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon


Did you happen to read page 11?

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

? defend the American homeland;

? fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

<snip>

Yeah its fine :roll:
Yea, because we've never had to do that before....:roll:
I'm confused by your response. Are you for these actions or against?
I think you are not interpreting the bold correctly. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a PLAN to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". It has happened before(WWII), and will probably happen again. I am not saying that I agree with the PNAC, I'm just pointing out that there are certain parts that aren't all bad.
Exactly. At current levels, we're currently unprepared for North Korea to attack South Korea, or China to take Taiwan. We need the ability to fight mulitiple major theater wars.
I don't think we're unprepared. Obviously we're not "prepared" for a WWII type conflict, but that doesn't mean we're unprepared for the kinds of conflicts we would face in the world today. What's objectionable about PNAC's "core mission for US military forces" is that it's really backward looking, and sounds more like a plan for world domination than anything else.

Winning conflicts is not the same as it was in WWII. Let's face it, we've come a LONG way in terms of technology and tactics since then...it was 60 years ago, why would it be a good model for a conflict of the future? Our weapons are advanced to the point where there are solutions beyond just throwing waves of men at the enemy.

But even if I'm wrong about that, I think it's worth considering how ready the OTHER guy is going to be for a WWII scale conflict. We spend orders of magnitude more on our military than any other country on the planet, it doesn't really matter if we can field thousands of airplanes or ships or millions of men, because the other side isn't going to be able to either. All countries like China and North Korea have going for them is the millions of men in uniform, but their weapons are so far behind in terms of numbers and technology that it would be a slaughter. With Taiwan, for example, China certainly has the troops, but not the air force or the navy to support an invasion. This is not a problem for North Korea heading south, but the idea that the battle would turn into trench warfare is just silly. They'd come marching south with guys with rifles and get a bunch of tanks and fighter-bombers right in the teeth.

Maintaining a WWII level army when there is no adversary justifying it looks pretty much like imperial warmongering to the rest of the world, because it is...not to mention it's wasteful as hell.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
Well if you support the majority of the insanity that PNAC preaches you are most definitely a neo conservative whether or not you want to admit it. Of course there are a few harmless things in there you could support. A classical small government conservative like me is not going to support most of the nationalistic/facsist regime promoting crap PNAC supports.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,215
381
126
That PNAC crap is batshit craziness. I read about how Guiliani's likely staff would be hawks/PNAC supporters. I'd rather vote for a pile of dogshit than Guiliani in that case.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
If you have never researched what PNAC is or read their mission statement I suggest you do so immediately. The most vile organization in the history of the US.
:roll: Says you and about 20 other people here on anandtech
Don't be a fool. Read it.
Don't be a fool and think that your opinion is anything more than it is.
So you admit you haven't read it? How easy it is to be foolish without knowledge.
Your one of them people that pisses in a fan for fun, aren't you? Heh heh.
Does that response actually sound clever to you? It's not, it's a pathetic cop out. I'm being totally serious with you. I don't care if you you defend your assertions citing the Book of Mormon or the ramblings of Timothy Leary, just defend your assertions.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
Well if you support the majority of the insanity that PNAC preaches you are most definitely a neo conservative whether or not you want to admit it. Of course there are a few harmless things in there you could support. A classical small government conservative like me is not going to support most of the nationalistic/facsist regime promoting crap PNAC supports.
Yeah, because you know what I am based on YOUR irrational fear of one organization. :roll:

Sorry, but I am a Conservative - always will be(unless they change the tenants of Conservatism). And I am not a neo-conservative even though I don't think PNAC is the work of the devil. :p There is nothing wrong with most of what PNAC stands for when you look at it with a rational mindset.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon


Did you happen to read page 11?

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

? defend the American homeland;

? fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

<snip>

Yeah its fine :roll:
Yea, because we've never had to do that before....:roll:
I'm confused by your response. Are you for these actions or against?
I think you are not interpreting the bold correctly. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a PLAN to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". It has happened before(WWII), and will probably happen again. I am not saying that I agree with the PNAC, I'm just pointing out that there are certain parts that aren't all bad.
Exactly. At current levels, we're currently unprepared for North Korea to attack South Korea, or China to take Taiwan. We need the ability to fight mulitiple major theater wars.
I don't think we're unprepared. Obviously we're not "prepared" for a WWII type conflict, but that doesn't mean we're unprepared for the kinds of conflicts we would face in the world today. What's objectionable about PNAC's "core mission for US military forces" is that it's really backward looking, and sounds more like a plan for world domination than anything else.

Winning conflicts is not the same as it was in WWII. Let's face it, we've come a LONG way in terms of technology and tactics since then...it was 60 years ago, why would it be a good model for a conflict of the future? Our weapons are advanced to the point where there are solutions beyond just throwing waves of men at the enemy.

But even if I'm wrong about that, I think it's worth considering how ready the OTHER guy is going to be for a WWII scale conflict. We spend orders of magnitude more on our military than any other country on the planet, it doesn't really matter if we can field thousands of airplanes or ships or millions of men, because the other side isn't going to be able to either. All countries like China and North Korea have going for them is the millions of men in uniform, but their weapons are so far behind in terms of numbers and technology that it would be a slaughter. With Taiwan, for example, China certainly has the troops, but not the air force or the navy to support an invasion. This is not a problem for North Korea heading south, but the idea that the battle would turn into trench warfare is just silly. They'd come marching south with guys with rifles and get a bunch of tanks and fighter-bombers right in the teeth.

Maintaining a WWII level army when there is no adversary justifying it looks pretty much like imperial warmongering to the rest of the world, because it is...not to mention it's wasteful as hell.
It's also entirely missing the point. The most important element of international significance is money; plain and simple. Tanks, planes, bombs, they're nothing but deterrents only to be used in case we become ultimately outmaneuvered in the global economy and are reduced to throwing blunt objects at our adversaries just to get their attention. The day we've been reduced to engaging the emerging co-super powers with bullets instead of trade is the day our country lost it's chair at the front of the table. People are getting all twitchy at the thought of countries like China being able to stand on their own two feet economically and instead of using their (China's) leverage in our favor, we're instead preferring to respond in a way that ignores the nature of their greatest weapon. China doesn't have to fire a single bullet to severely injure our country.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
Well if you support the majority of the insanity that PNAC preaches you are most definitely a neo conservative whether or not you want to admit it. Of course there are a few harmless things in there you could support. A classical small government conservative like me is not going to support most of the nationalistic/facsist regime promoting crap PNAC supports.
Yeah, because you know what I am based on YOUR irrational fear of one organization. :roll:

Sorry, but I am a Conservative - always will be(unless they change the tenants of Conservatism). And I am not a neo-conservative even though I don't think PNAC is the work of the devil. :p There is nothing wrong with most of what PNAC stands for when you look at it with a rational mindset.
I'm very rational. A big govt. bully is not what I want and is not conservative. Sorry..that is what they support in their own words.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Did you happen to read page 11?

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

? defend the American homeland;

? fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

? perform the ?constabulary? duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;

? transform U.S. forces to exploit the ?revolution in military affairs;?

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today?s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the ?Base Force? outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

Yeah its fine :roll:
You do realize that this is simply a statement supporting the continuation of the Two Wars Doctrine - which is a decades old concept dating back to the early 90s?

US mulls dropping two-war doctrine

Washington, July 6: The Pentagon, stretched by the war in Iraq, is considering dropping a linchpin of American military strategy, the doctrine that requires it to be prepared to fight two major wars at the same time.

Since the end of the Cold War the need to be able to fight two ?near-simultaneous? wars in different theatres has dominated military thinking, with Iraq and North Korea seen as the most likely battlefields. Now, with military resources under increasing strain from commitments in Iraq, the Pentagon is considering a new doctrine to take into account the post-September 11 world.
In fact, the Bush administration has been largely against the aforementioned position:

WASHINGTON ? Early on, the Bush administration argued against the military strategy that U.S. troops should be able to win two major wars in different regions at the same time. The doctrine was not necessary and had outlived its usefulness in a post-Cold War era, it said. But as President Bush inches toward a new confrontation with Iraq while continuing the American-led anti-terror war, it's conceivable the United States could end up doing just that ? fighting two wars simultaneously, although hardly in the same way.

As much as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld criticized the two-war doctrine he inherited, the administration did not outright abandon it.
Not to burst your tinfoil-decorated bubble, but if you're going to rail against an organization it should probably be for real reasons instead of halfassed ones.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
Well if you support the majority of the insanity that PNAC preaches you are most definitely a neo conservative whether or not you want to admit it. Of course there are a few harmless things in there you could support. A classical small government conservative like me is not going to support most of the nationalistic/facsist regime promoting crap PNAC supports.
Yeah, because you know what I am based on YOUR irrational fear of one organization. :roll:

Sorry, but I am a Conservative - always will be(unless they change the tenants of Conservatism). And I am not a neo-conservative even though I don't think PNAC is the work of the devil. :p There is nothing wrong with most of what PNAC stands for when you look at it with a rational mindset.
I'm very rational. A big govt. bully is not what I want and is not conservative. Sorry..that is what they support in their own words.
I don't support big gov't either. However, the "bully" part is a bit over the top and is where this irrational fear comes into play. We must always be prepared or atleast have a plan for different scenarios so I don't see how they as basically a think-tank should be feared. I don't fear the leftist think tanks even though I disagree with their ideals.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank so uhh it really isn't a different subject.
Uh, but one doesn't have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC was about.
Well if you support the majority of the insanity that PNAC preaches you are most definitely a neo conservative whether or not you want to admit it. Of course there are a few harmless things in there you could support. A classical small government conservative like me is not going to support most of the nationalistic/facsist regime promoting crap PNAC supports.
Yeah, because you know what I am based on YOUR irrational fear of one organization. :roll:

Sorry, but I am a Conservative - always will be(unless they change the tenants of Conservatism). And I am not a neo-conservative even though I don't think PNAC is the work of the devil. :p There is nothing wrong with most of what PNAC stands for when you look at it with a rational mindset.
I'm very rational. A big govt. bully is not what I want and is not conservative. Sorry..that is what they support in their own words.
I don't support big gov't either. However, the "bully" part is a bit over the top and is where this irrational fear comes into play. We must always be prepared or atleast have a plan for different scenarios so I don't see how they as basically a think-tank should be feared. I don't fear the leftist think tanks even though I disagree with their ideals.
I don't think it is irrational to fear the PNAC considering the influence they had on this admin and the trouble they got us in...

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,802
4,698
126
Anyone voting for a Republican in 2008 must have really liked 2000-2006, when GOP had control, or is a masochist, or a fool.
GOP cannot be trusted to govern. Period. They've proven it once and for all.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,793
3,309
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Anyone voting for a Republican in 2008 must have really liked 2000-2006, when GOP had control, or is a masochist, or a fool.
GOP cannot be trusted to govern. Period. They've proven it once and for all.
Who is fit to govern?

Or rather, the problems in the Republican Party have been due to pro-government stances. Show me an alternative to that ideology.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: senseamp
Anyone voting for a Republican in 2008 must have really liked 2000-2006, when GOP had control, or is a masochist, or a fool.
GOP cannot be trusted to govern. Period. They've proven it once and for all.
Who is fit to govern?

Or rather, the problems in the Republican Party have been due to pro-government stances. Show me an alternative to that ideology.
alternative? I thought that was supposed to be conservatism.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,493
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.


Wow. You are a fuckin' idiot.

THE Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.,

Dear yaweh, why do you bother? And since Blackflag already call you on this latest gem from you, why do you insist on digging yourself deeper? Why don't you actually learn something before you bark.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: senseamp
Anyone voting for a Republican in 2008 must have really liked 2000-2006, when GOP had control, or is a masochist, or a fool.
GOP cannot be trusted to govern. Period. They've proven it once and for all.
Who is fit to govern?

Or rather, the problems in the Republican Party have been due to pro-government stances. Show me an alternative to that ideology.
alternative? I thought that was supposed to be conservatism.

The Bush administration has been nothing even close to resembling conservative.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.
:confused:

Ummm, PNAC is the personification of the neocon agenda.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Moveon.org, Mediamatters, DailyKOS... are different than PNAC neocons. They serve different functions and play different roles in the political process.

That said, they're ALL extremist kooks!

I hope the next admin avoids ALL of them!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.


Wow. You are a fuckin' idiot.

THE Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.,

Dear yaweh, why do you bother? And since Blackflag already call you on this latest gem from you, why do you insist on digging yourself deeper? Why don't you actually learn something before you bark.

Once again for the nitwits who are too blinded by their BDS(or whatever they have) - Yes, I know what PNAC is - HOWEVER, one does not have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC supports. Man you people are dense.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.


Wow. You are a fuckin' idiot.

THE Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.,

Dear yaweh, why do you bother? And since Blackflag already call you on this latest gem from you, why do you insist on digging yourself deeper? Why don't you actually learn something before you bark.

Once again for the nitwits who are too blinded by their BDS(or whatever they have) - Yes, I know what PNAC is - HOWEVER, one does not have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC supports. Man you people are dense.
I think you're confusing blindness with logic.... :D
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
I have always believed that the biggest problem with the Bush administration was not so much Bush himself, but those who surrounded him.

I watched an interview today with Giuliani on CNN (IIRC), and he refused to talk about who he would surround himself with. Probably something typical, with the exception of Vice President, but even that position would remain open until we get closer to the elections.

Which of these candidates do you think most likely would give staff positions to members and/or strong supporters of PNAC and their beliefs?

Giuliani
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Thompson
Paul
Hunter
Tancredo

And do you think it would positively or negatively affect their administration?

Edit: For those living under a rock...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...e_New_American_Century
You have Ron Paul in that list? (Although I suppose if you left him out some would complain he's being ignored again).

After listening to RP on Glenn Beck the other night, you can rest assured that he's more anti-PNAC than even the Dem candidates.

Geez, the PNAC types would prolly wanna assasinate Paul if he's elected. You can't be any more anti-PNAC than Paul.

Fern
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,493
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.
Psssttt - We're talking PNAC here. Neo-cons are a different subject.


Wow. You are a fuckin' idiot.

THE Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.,

Dear yaweh, why do you bother? And since Blackflag already call you on this latest gem from you, why do you insist on digging yourself deeper? Why don't you actually learn something before you bark.

Once again for the nitwits who are too blinded by their BDS(or whatever they have) - Yes, I know what PNAC is - HOWEVER, one does not have to be a neo-con to support some of the things PNAC supports. Man you people are dense.


We understood what you are saying and are responding with an emphatic "YOU ARE WRONG." In the context of my post you quoted, i was clearly talking about the neocons who are behind PNAC. Your response makes no sense whatsoever in ANY context. PNAC is a group of neocons, the OP says PNAC people should not be serving any administration so it is baffling for you to say what you are saying right n ow.

Of course, you probably just don't know what you're talking about but won't admit it.

I strongly suggest you give this up. You had no business posting in this thread since you didn't even know the relationship between PNAC and neocons.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY