See other Editorial Articles
Title: Top Ten Reasons why I will not vote for Ron Paul
Source:
stmachiavelli
URL Source: http://stmachiavelli.livejournal.com/1015290.html
Published: Jun 11, 2007
Author: stmachiavelli
Post Date: 2007-06-11 14:53:34 by can of corn
Keywords: al qaeda, standing for the twoof, shiny foil hat
Views: 1222
Comments: 141
1) He's a "truther" by association - He panders and plays to that group of people who believe the events of Sep 11, were an "inside job" without going so far as to say "Fire won't melt steel!" 2) He's called for a Mcarthiesque reopening of the 9/11 Commission, basing it this time on popular opinion, conspiracy theory, and politics rather than fact. - This one goes hand in hand with item 1. 3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East. 4) He's for gay marriage, but against gay adoption. - Here we are total polar opposites. I'm against gay marriage because it brings nothing to the state, but for gay adoption because any stable home for a child is better than a foster home or orphanage. 5) He's stated he'd like to go back to the "gold standard". - This makes baby economists weep. 6) He's against stem cell research 7) He's "touchy feely" when it comes to crime and punishment 8) He's against free trade (or at least his voting record is). 9) He's never seen a defense appropriation bill he liked. - Yes we can fight our enemies armed with sticks and stones! 10) He's pro "illegal immigration". And lastly... The ACLU likes him. Or more seriously, his voting record is a mess. Its almost like he's voted for and then against the same ideas in different bills just so he could appear to be a moderate or something. As I believe actions (in this case votes) speak louder than campaign promises this makes it very difficult for me to believe what Ron really thinks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: can of corn (#0)
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
You quote a guy who has "Rumsfeld for President '08" in his descriptor box? A guy who has no clue what he's talking about to start with? Whew. Good luck with that.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Not.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
It's the baby economists who are against the gold standard. You're at the wrong site.
Freeper motto: I read, but do not understand, I write, but make no sense, I think, but nothing happens.
Pure gobbledygook.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Whether Ron Paul is selling it or not, I'm BUYING, this because it is the complete and unvarnished TRUTH.
It's like this: Iranians hate us because we supplied arms to their arch enemy who then used those weapons, including WMDs, to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians. But that was our "response" to Iran's taking US hostages and overthrowing the brutal dictator we installed there. If they hadn't insisted on self-government, but kept in place the puppet regime we installed, we'd never have had to arm their enemy and encourage him to attack them. So it's their fault. And sure, they hate us for overthrowing their democratically elected president with our CIA, but that democratically elected president tried to put an end to the oil deal that had American and British companies sucking out their oil at pennies per barrel. If the Iranians hadn't tried to control their own oil, we wouldn't have had to overthrow their government. So that was their fault, too. As for Iraq, sure we supplied Saddam for years and supported him, and we greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait. But he should have known better than to believe us or that our words meant anything. So the first Gulf War was his fault. As for the sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, if he'd abdicated and committed suicide, that wouldn't have had to happen. His fault again. As for the second Iraq war, well, Saddam could have denationalized his oil at any time and re-opened his oil fields to American companies. But he didn't, so we had to depose him and destroy his country, and besides, he never made nice with and/or surrendered his sovereignty to Israel. Again, his fault. See, the regimes in the Middle East don't support our ambition to rule the world and take all of their resources, so it's their fault we have to invade, sanction, destroy and tommorrow (if Joe Lieberman is successful) bomb them. Plus they were born in the wrong place and are of the wrong religion. What do they expect?
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
COC, I need to see this....ante up...PDQ
unnnnhhhhh.. No. Because Iran was heading to aa struggling democracy and we toppled their government for BP and pout in Shah Rezi Pahlevi who might look cute to you but who brutalized his people. All Arab nations, polled in detail before we stole their land and gave it to a bunch of Eastern European grubb-suckers who had never been there, preferred that the US administer any mandate for them than any TOTAL of all other countries. That is how well-loved and respected we were until the Big Lie that stole Palestine from the Palestinians.
That pathetic attempt at a sentence reminds me of George W's garbled syntax.
Since the idiot who wrote this is probably a hardcore Bushbot, the hypocrisy of this claim is simply amazing. 8) He's against free trade If this is true, then good for Dr. Paul (free trade is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of libertarianism). In fact, I think that Paul is (unfortunately) a free trader, he simply opposed NAFTA and GATT on the grounds that they were a bureaucratized form of free trade. The distinction went completely over the head of the dimwit who wrote this.
Post Date: 2007-06-11 14:53:34 by can of corn 1) He's a "truther" by association - He panders and plays to that group of people who believe the events of Sep 11, were an "inside job" without going so far as to say "Fire won't melt steel!" Title: Ron Paul on 9/11 (Is Ron Paul a Sell Out?) Post Date: 2007-06-11 10:08:29 by can of corn Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that? Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that. Wow. Talk about posting out of both sides of your ass.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
It's not hypocricy, it's plain old lying. Ron Paul isn't pro-illegal immigration, and anyone who thinks or says he is either suffers from a delusion or is a simple bullshit artist. I wonder which Republicon Cornhole my Can is shilling for, Giuliani or McStain? This clumsy ham-fisted bullshit approach reminds me more of Giuliani.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Wow! He's more perfect than I realized.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
No. I think you may have taken my post other than in its intended spirit.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Not really BDT... just point out the sword bedecked Shah was not the "Gentleman" most seem to think he was. Actually I have no love whatsoever for any of the Middle Eastern Tribes and even less for the Eastern European Faux Tribe with its hand always out and its mouth stretched wide open in an incessant Victim Wail !
I'm waiting for the "Illegal Alien" support documentation.
AIPAC Silly ! Rumney, McStain and Juliani are just blow up dolls.
just point out the sword bedecked Shah was not the "Gentleman" most seem to think he was. He was a brutal dictator who ran his country through SAVAK inspired terror, and we installed him in place of their democratically elected guy.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
I take it you believe that the WTC towers fell because the fires melted the steel struture, right?
Not. *Ding* Mirage wins~~~ The Immigration Question by Ron Paul The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election. We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago. We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care. We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America. We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase. April 4, 2006 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. Find this article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/p aul/paul314.html
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Can it!
God is always good! LIAR.
I think the author means that it's not our fault that we're in the Middle east. It's someone else's.
We chose to be hornswaggled.
Yeah, that's BS. Paul is clearly not pro illegal immigration. But one of the duties of every BushBot is to make totally false and easily proven to be false claims.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Corn Remover "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Actually, not at all. He panders to the insane twoofers, but won't come out and publicly say, as the twoofers do, that he believes Bush was behind 911. He's either a shameless panderer or gutless on the matter. I will have to give him credit for not being as clueless as the twoofers he panders too, though.
I have bozo'd the bunnioned one. Two bit trolls are boring.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Thanks calamity... spot on... once and for all... Now I await that can to open up again
You're most welcome. I figure cone-pone will move to the ME topic again, and attempt a run at 'isolationism' without discussing interventionism and lessons from such as Smedley Butler. -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super- Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major- General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Again you prove that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. He doesn't pander to them, they seek him out. And they seek him out because he seems to be an honest person, unlike all of the other stuffed shirts running for holy orifice. Which candidate do you support for president?
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Which candidate do you support for president? BluedogTexan Answer: Any paid off and guaranteed bloc votes, Electoral College Control and Media Bias by AIPAC... i.e. any of the put-up, bended-knee, homage-paying candidates you see EXCEPT RON PAUL !
That tells me all I need to know.
i'm getting flashbacks
right on
Yes. And it goes without saying, our government has no intention of allowing assimilation, when divide and rule will move them ever more quickly through their real agenda. De-population is the name of the game. Through a draft, no chippy no worky, starvation, poisoning via, food, air, water, forced immunizations, refusal of medical care, taxation, imprisonment. And worse, much worse. The record of Ron Paul, against the others, stands against this tidal wave of evil.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
christine you're not old enough for those
Most wont bother to read this, and many think that this government has gone bad only in the last twenty years. Don't tell anyone but I am so old I had an older friend that was in the Marines with Gen. Butler.
Well, I'll keep posting it regardless. It's an important read, and one I agree with whole-heartedly. War IS a Racket. And it never frees, anyone. Rather, it further endentures a new region of slaves. Don't tell anyone but I am so old I had an older friend that was in the Marines with Gen. Butler. Nooooooooo. You're pulling Calamity's leg here aren't you? Next thing I know, you'll be telling me you were gathering animals for the Ark. ;) Seriously, is that true?
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Excuse me can of crap, but the URL you are looking for is FreeRepublic Somehow, you made a wrong turn and got lost.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition LIAR. And that little piece of disingenuousness just got canofcrap bozod. Another lie- posting shill like BAC; someone not here to debate honestly, but to spam, shill and obfuscate with lies.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition I always love replying to petulant folks who wish to ignore me. Actually, you're right. I think Ron Paul would like to toss illegal families and their children into the Rio Grande and say "swim for it and don't come back." So, I'd be interested to know where the author is coming from.
Yes, they seek him out and he panders to them instead of saying, "There's no validity in anything you're alleging. Please, Im a Constitutionalist, not a conspiratorial nutjob."
He probably has little niblets anyway.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Funny how can of corn uses the same quote from Ron Paul: (1) on another thread to cast doubt on the 9/11 Truth movement (because Ron Paul doesn't clearly accept it); and (2) here to explain why people should not vote for Ron Paul (because Ron Paul does not clearly reject 9/11 Truth beliefs).
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I really can't believe this St.Machiavelli guy who authored this. Is his site like the onion, or is he for real? do you know? Anyone who is intelligent and has reviewed the literature of the truthers is going to say that it was either an inside job or done by someone other than who it was blamed on to provoke the foreign policy we have. Any fool can see that. There are a lot of people who have an inability to think independently of the television. It is sad. Regarding Paul's unwillingness to say it was an 'inside job', he is correct from the point of view that he should not say things he can't prove. Paul is doing the right thing in challenging the conventional wisdom on sept 11 events.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Thanks for posting Butler's writing, as he offers an important commentary that comes from his personal history that those in this country need to be made aware of. Yes, Paul is the only one standing against evil. For the most part, if you look closely you will see that the others ARE evil. Good work, Calamity.
Good work, Calamity. Thanks Phant! I believe, as others do, Ron Paul, is leading this nations last bayonett charge for her survival.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
For a second I thought you were referring to Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, aka "Beastly Ben" aka "Spoons", nicknamed for his unfortunate compulsion to pilfer silverware at dinner parties. He was the Union Officer who not only granted sanctuary to runaway slaves at Fortress Monroe in my home of Norfolk, VA (in direct violation of the fugitive slave law) but he also issued the infamous General Order #28, which is why he was the only officer in the history of our nation to have his image on the bottom of bedpans. (not a joke) He was a real nasty character, and every proud Confederate who utters his name in mixed company should expel sputum and say, "If you'll pardon the goddam expression, Ma'am!" The other Butler was truly a great American. If I had the power I'd make every applicant for enlistment read WAR IS A RACKET, or watch a Disney style animated cartoon or perhaps a hip hop music video if their reading skills aren't up to it.
You and your bosses are scared white. As well you should be. Paul's integrity and sterling reputation is so far beyond your ability to ding that you are reduced to posting gibberish hoping something, anything will be interpreted as legit and well founded. Paul has delivered thousands of babies, perhaps hundreds at no charge for poor patients, many of them Hispanic. He's never uttered a mean spirited statement in over twenty years that I've followed his career. Your attempt at character assassination is a bit ambitious for someone with your obvious limitations, and everything Paul says and does is completely consistent with his (and our) desire to restore our republic. You implied that he votes differently on the same bills, but if you weren't a political dilettante you'd know that even sponsors of bills vote against undesirable amendments or motions for cloture or rules suspension. He doesn't vote against a bill after voting for it (or vice versa) if it is substantially intact and unchanged, (no cloak room skullduggery) and I challenge you to cite one example and prove this statement false. So, you fling non specific poo which is not only unworthy of serious debate but impossible to dispute since you carefully avoid specifics. Try this. Tell us who you support and why so we can dismiss you. Obviously there isn't an announced candidate anywhere that you dare juxtapose with Paul, and your failure to offer a name is no oversight. (CLUE: Rumsfeld is not a candidate, and he couldn't get elected to the job of chief fluffer in the shower at Leavenworth which is where he is going if he doesn't expire first.) I'm guessing that you work for H&R Block and you're petrified of having to do honest labor, perhaps even heavy lifting once the totally useless tax prep industry is dismantled. Am I right? Since misrepresentation born of desperation flows so readily from your fingers it's quite logical to assume that you are a pack rat for IRS receipts or some other equally disreputable swindle. So, your intellectual dishonesty + political schizophrenia = non producing bureaucrat and enemy of the constitution, and therefore the enemy of freedom loving patriots.
I don't want a President who believes the best way not to be attacked by Islamic terrorists is to allow them to dictate our foreign policy. He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
Again with the slippery? Let me try again. Who.... Do.... You.... Want? No offense, but you cannot offer a frontal assault and simultaneously cower away from exposing your true agenda if you expect to be anything other than an object of political whimsy here. This isn't a Pauly Shore movie, my young friend. Sooner or later you have to make a bold, hairy-chested move and say something or, once you're humor potential has been exhausted we'll simply lose interest in you. And, believe me, that's a chilly place where no self respecting person would ever want to find her or himself. "I'm Barnacle Bill The Sailor...."
Do.... You.... Want? Thompson, Romney, Giuiliani In that order.
I speak truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare; and I dare a little the more as I grow older. ~ Montaigne
I speak truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare; and I dare a little the more as I grow older. ~ Montaigne
I speak truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare; and I dare a little the more as I grow older. ~ Montaigne
Hound... My feelings are crushed. Gen. Benjamin Butler is in my family tree. I thought about sawing off that limb but not one American in a thousand ever heard of him, so I left him there. No one ever asks about him and I wont tell. Gen Smedley Butler is one of my heros and not a known relation, just my luck.
I speak truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare; and I dare a little the more as I grow older. ~ Montaigne
In that order. During a May 3, 2007 presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Thompson said in response to a question from moderator Chris Matthews that a private employer opposed to homosexuality should have the right to fire a gay worker.[1] He said "I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be." He called CNN the following morning to say he didn't hear the question correctly. He apologized, saying "It's not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace."_wiki Didn't you use the phrase "McCarthyesque"? Americans won't vote for any candidate from Tail Gunner Joe's home state. Especially one who wants to biochip us all for the convenience of govt slave drivers. Try again.
LOL
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
My feelings are crushed. Gen. Benjamin Butler is in my family tree. I thought about sawing off that limb but not one American in a thousand ever heard of him, so I left him there. No one ever asks about him and I wont tell. Gen Smedley Butler is one of my heros and not a known relation, just my luck. lol! Well, if it's any consolation, when I researched my family crest it was a stolen horse and a hangman's noose!
I speak truth, not as much as I would, but as much as I dare; and I dare a little the more as I grow older. ~ Montaigne
FRED Thompson, Not Tommy.
So then, why Fred?
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
That's more of a reason why he won't be elected. There are simply not enough 9/11 "truthers" to give him a victory.
He supports low taxes and a limitred intrusiveness of the Federal government. He has realistic positions on free trade. He beilieves abortion should be an issue left to the States. He doesn't subscribe to kooky environmental alsrmism. He supports the right to bear arms. He will fight the war on Islamic extremists.
Maybe they can find a way to spam the polling booths.
Do you guys mind if I lay low here for a while? I'm about this
Do you guys mind if I lay low here for a while? I'm about this Oh, you favor a charismatic candidate? When Clint Eastwood ran for mayor of Carmel-By-The-Sea his opponent sloganeered with "Substance Not Image!" But, in fact he was a savvy and respectable politician who "as mayor (he) repealed a municipal law that forbade anyone from eating ice cream on the sidewalk." (wiki) I'm sure we can expect equally great things from Fred Thompson should he become our next surrogate father figure president.
and he's an Israelfirster!
I'd like free trade to be defined here for the purpose of discussing this further. I'm totally against free trade if free trade means that no tariffs are paid on goods imported into the USA.
I'm totally against free trade if free trade means that no tariffs are paid on goods imported into the USA. Excellent point and it's about time! The founding daddies intended our country to run on "duties, imposts and excises", but now the corporate excise is passed onto politically powerless employees instead of the corporation which exercises the taxable privilege. coc's definition is exactly as Ross Perot defined it. No taxes for him and he'll cheerfully rape his employees' checks instead. Quid Pro Quo....
If I was any gayer, I'd be all fer Giuliani. Do you guys mind if I lay low here for a while? I'm about this From Michael Brendan Dougherty's article "Lone Stat" in the June 18 issue of The American Conservative, which I just received in the mail. I remember, when NAFTA was coming before Congress, I hear Jerry Brown denounce it on the radio as a complex piece of special-interest legislation. I tried to get a copy of the agreement so that I could check for myself whether he was right, and it turned out even members of Congress didn't have texts of it at the time.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Are Cold Warriors who want to continue the Cold War with a new enemy in touch with the 21st century? Aren't they the ones who are out of date?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why does the latest news bar of this site look like it was cut and pasted from Stormfront?
We aren't engaged on a "cold" war, if you haven't noticed.
We're less at war now than we were in Korea and Vietnam. Both of which wars occurred as phases of the Cold War.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I won't necessarily say no tariffs, but they should definitely be minimized. Why do we want to penalize consumers by subsidizing unprofitable American businesses?
And neither Korea nor Vietnam directly attcked American soil as our current enemy has on more than occasion.
Must be the same reason your posts look like like the latest memo from AIPAC.
Neither did Iraq.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
The record of Ron Paul, against the others, stands against this tidal wave of evil. Aptly stated. :)
Remember the Liberty http://www.ussliberty.org Larry, Curly, Moe and a potential great leader in every sense of the word In Ron Paul We Trust Sounds like Cold War thinking.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Sure. If Shrub hadn't come to our rescue, Iraqi troops would be occupying Detroit and Peoria today.
Not necessarily. From looking at the 9/11 Truth movement, it all got its start because of one question - the same question that was asked during Watergate. "What did the President know and when did he know it?" To date, that question has NOT been answered. Answering that one question would put a LOT of this to bed rather quickly.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Why do we want to penalize American citizens by making them pay an income tax to run a government that is supposed to be funded by tariffs?
Especially when the income tax is imposed on domestic manufacturers, but not foreign ones, when a tariff does just the opposite. In fact, the income tax operates as a negative tariff that discourages domestic enterprise. We ought at the least to have tariffs high enough to counterbalance this effect.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Exactly.
He knew it when they whispered it in his ear in the FL classroom.
And you think the average American consumer is going to gladly want tariffs after he learns how much he will have to pay? You could not place tariffs high enough to replace our income tax system with them. In fact if you tried, you'd have to place tariffs so high that foreign products would be priced out of the market place with heir import being dried up. You'd have to have other means of revenue anyway PLUS the consumer would be screwed.
Okay. So Bush never had an intelligence briefing. Ever. He's more dumb than we thought then and should be removed from office on that alone. Is that the case you're trying to make?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Yes, and I suppose he was told that on 9/11/2001 of the exact time, locations, and means we would be attacked and just forgot to do anything about it or just decided not to because he could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, then, now you agree with the truthers. Which way do you want to take this? Its your argument. All I'm saying is that the answer to "What did Bush know and when did he know it" would resolve a lot of open issues with the public and likely defuse the 9/11 Truth Movement. You seem to want to claim he was unaware of Al-Qaeda's existance. Interesting.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I guess I should have added this: /sarcasm Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable. It's crazy to think otherwise.
Thank You ITTA ! :)
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
It would take a combination of things to fix all the shit the criminals in DC have created. Cutting back on extra-constitutional spending combined with a system of tariffs would go a long way toward getting us back on the right track.
The unfortunate thing is that we don't know if it was actionable or not because we don't have the information. We don't know the level of briefing - we don't know the credibility level of what was floating around. We know next to nothing. I'll keep saying this. If we knew what Bush had been briefed on and what his responses were, it would go a long way toward defusing the distrust. Its just like Watergate in that regard.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
When a party doesn't bring forward evidence that is in his possession, it's grounds for suspecting the evidence goes against him.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's crazy to think otherwise. Remember that Condi was briefed about the possiblity of an attack by Tenet in an emergency meeting about a month before. She then lied about the meeting ot the 911 commission. The truth then came out late last year when the meeting logs were released. How should we handle this for the pack of goobers on this site? Just tell them it didn't happen?
Exactly. In my opinion, this is the crux and lynchpin. If it came out that Bush was fully briefed but that the Feds said "Naw, not likely to happen" or "We think it will happen in October but not September" then it would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the problems and questions surrounding 9/11. If it came out that Bush was fully briefed AND the intelligence people said "We find this credible" and Bush did nothing, then it would prove he was culpable. It would go a long way toward answering the question of whether he let things happen. And finally - if it came out that nobody knew anything (or if intelligence said something other than Al-Qaeda) then it would raise other questions that would still need to be answered - and the conspiracy theory would need to go in a different direction. Maybe its just me, but the question of "What did Bush know and when did he know it" seems to be the big missing piece of the puzzle and is where it all starts.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
They were given briefings about the possibility of hijackings with no times, dates, or places. There was nothing actionable.
OK. I will spin it to them that way.
No spin There is nothing here to act on.
Why don't we just tell them there was no meeting? That's cleaner than trying to explain the lack of increased security.
Why do you change your screen name every couple of days?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
A corn like him could never abide in a Free zone.
At least Ron Paul can hang onto his watch when venturing out into the world. That's more than can be said for Lord Bunnypants.
Well, that leaves surgery. :D
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Well, apart from the stem cell research, the gay adoption thing, and the gold standard, I'm WAY more on Ron Paul's side than this turkey's. And I'd like to see the proof he's against gay adoption, for instance. Sometimes people vote against bills because of something hidden in them, not because of the main bill.
This is the only screen name I've ever had here.
Duh! I was talking about over on LP.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
You are out of touch with the 18th Century.
Aren't we all?
Why can't I find a girl like that.. LOL
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Duh! I was talking about over on LP. He knew that. Obviously he's a lawyer or a politician.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Should I fix you some sandwiches?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Would it be terribly wrong of me to desire that fence sitters such as the can in question should in the process of straddling that damned fence crush his widdle ol' niblets as fair and just treatment for liars?
Oh, bullshit or horsehockey! Put tariffs high enough and the sheeple will take pitchforks, tar and feathers to DC and clean house! Gubmint would have to go on a diet.....stop funding the world's problems and those we cause to other nations, as well as reducing MIC expenses big time, and cutting out bullshit like the National Endowment for Pornography, trips all over the world for the jerks that are supposed to be 'leadering' this country, blah blah blah. Takes a lot to be real creative in how to correct such things that you whine that gubmint needs to find other ways to steal our finances...took me probably 30 seconds to think of those couple of things. I'm sure others here have a lot more examples and no doubt better ones. OTOH, your answer is more and more taxation or revenue enhancements!
After what we've done to Iraq, why should the rest of the world take chances on us? In deaths, destruction, innocents tortured and wanton disregard for long- established standards of civilized behavior, we are now the most-rogue and most- shamelessly-criminal nation on Earth. No one else is even a close second.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
In deaths, destruction, innocents tortured and wanton disregard for long- established standards of civilized behavior, we are now the most-rogue and most- shamelessly-criminal nation on Earth. No one else is even a close second. But besides that?? My government sickens me. And has placed its citizens in tremendous danger. For the short term benefit of the DC crowd. Sad and angry
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
My government sickens me. And has placed its citizens in tremendous danger. It sickens me, too, Tom. The scriptures revealed its essence with an economy of words that could only have been divinely inspired. The prophets called it "The Beast." And in its heartless rapine bloodlust and savage negation of all that remains good, holy and sacred in this sin-stricken world, it is beast-like indeed, in every way.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
The question of the decade. Or Two or three.
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
You do know that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11, right?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Abolishing the income tax would be a boon for the economy. We don't need it or any revenue neutral replacement for it.
Your idea of a suitable punishment is original and sublime.
And, preferably through a complicated scheme involving tax tables and other criteria that are too complicated to calculate without the assistance of a trained H&R Blockhead.
That pathetic attempt at a sentence reminds me of George W's garbled syntax. Or an entry in the Bulwer Lytton Contest.
Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and talks Marxist shit, it's probably Can of Corn.
RON PAUL or REVOLUTION [ALL MEDIA: We don't report and you certainly don't decide]
You're a fucking marxist slimeball. Something for others with a more analytical mind to ponder. What if there actually is a legal fiction [sometimes called the strawman] created at birth through the birth certificate and SSN. Wouldn't this legal "fiction" have as many privileges as any other taxpaying legal fiction ? Why wouldn't this legal fiction be afforded a "license" for whatever, driving, marrying, medical, phamaceutical etc., [I say it's a foregone conclusion in "law" and only a matter of time]. I contend that all of you that accept the current system through participation in it have already acquiesced to all of its positive and negative attributes.
RON PAUL or REVOLUTION [ALL MEDIA: We don't report and you certainly don't decide]
When Can of Crap was born the veterinarian took one look at his ass and one look at his face and said: ahh twins !
RON PAUL or REVOLUTION [ALL MEDIA: We don't report and you certainly don't decide]
So, instead of picking up pre pube runaways in NYC, two NAMBLA members can pretend to be a stable couple and adopt children? Their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late!" (for what? *shudders*) NAMBLA believes that man/boy love in its purest form involves specific acts with children, acts that decorum prohibits mentioning here.....
I have no problem whatsoever w/people that enjoy sex behind the privacy of their bedroom door. However, I have a large problem with the thought of two men adopting a young boy and raising him as their son. It’s way weird and I have no problem with state or federal powers stopping such an arrangement.
Right. We may safely assume that gays who won't abuse and those who will would be indistinguishable, and the potential exploiters would be careful to give all the right answers to adoption agencies. If gay males express interest in adopting boys only, that triggers my annunciator panel. I can hear it now; "Oh, sure, we'll take a little c**t breeder if that's all you have, but we'd rather adopt a boy!"
I think cornhole's LP name is "B L Z Bubb" since this article was posted on 4um as well as on LP. It's not proof, but I'd give it better than even odds. He's obviously a shill for the IRS as well. If everyone bozos him, he'll go the way of BAC.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition I don't bozo anyone; I just ignore them. It's really quite easy.
I'd rather just not see his posts. When I'm reading a thread, I won't be interrupted with one I have to "ignore." LOL. It's much more peaceful that way ;)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East.
#2. To: can of corn (#0)
#3. To: can of corn (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#4. To: can of corn (#0)
gold standard
#5. To: can of corn, Jethro Tull (#0)
#6. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies"
#7. To: Jethro Tull, cornhole my can, all (#1)
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
#8. To: can of corn, christine (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#7)
It's like this: Iranians hate us
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East.
#11. To: mirage (#3)
(Edited)
He's pro "illegal immigration".
#12. To: can of corn (#0)
Title: Top Ten Reasons why I will not vote for Ron Paul
#13. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#11)
He's pro "illegal immigration". Since the idiot who wrote this is probably a hardcore Bushbot, the hypocrisy of this claim is simply amazing.
#14. To: can of corn (#0)
#15. To: JCHarris (#9)
It's like this: Iranians hate us unnnnhhhhh..
#16. To: bluedogtxn (#15)
#17. To: robin, can of corn (#14)
#18. To: bluedogtxn (#13)
I wonder which Republicon Cornhole my Can is shilling for, Giuliani or McStain? This clumsy ham-fisted bullshit approach reminds me more of Giuliani.
#19. To: JCHarris (#16)
Not really BDT...
#20. To: can of corn (#0)
He panders and plays to that group of people who believe the events of Sep 11, were an "inside job" without going so far as to say "Fire won't melt steel!"
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#21. To: mirage, creamed corn, all, Ron Paul Supporters, Amnesty rejectors, (#3)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#22. To: can of corn (#0)
can of corn
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#23. To: can of corn (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East.
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
#25. To: Neil McIver (#24)
I think the author means that it's not our fault that we're in the Middle east. It's someone else's.
#26. To: JCHarris (#17)
#27. To: RickyJ (#22)
#28. To: bluedogtxn (#12)
Wow. Talk about posting out of both sides of your ass.
#29. To: FormerLurker (#23)
#30. To: Calamity, Diana, PercyDoveTonsils, FormerLurker, ALL, can of corn (#21)
We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
#31. To: JCHarris, christine, zipporah, former lurker, wudiditz, cynicom, phant2000, lodwick, all, bunnion (#30)
Thanks calamity...
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
#32. To: can of corn (#28)
Actually, not at all. He panders to the insane twoofers, but won't come out and publicly say, as the twoofers do, that he believes Bush was behind 911.
#33. To: bluedogtxn (#32)
Can of corn,
#34. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
You quote a guy who has "Rumsfeld for President '08" in his descriptor box?
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
#35. To: robin (#26)
But one of the duties of every BushBot is to make totally false and easily proven to be false claims.
#36. To: Calamity, Jethro Tull (#21)
True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
#37. To: christine (#36)
right on
#38. To: christine (#35)
i'm getting flashbacks
#39. To: Calamity (#31)
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
#40. To: Cynicom (#39)
Most wont bother to read this, and many think that this government has gone bad only in the last twenty years.
#41. To: can of corn, ALL (#0)
#42. To: FormerLurker, can of corn, jcharris (#23)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#43. To: IndieTX (#42)
And that little piece of disingenuousness just got canofcrap bozod.
#44. To: bluedogtxn (#32)
He doesn't pander to them, they seek him out.
#45. To: IndieTX (#42)
And that little piece of disingenuousness just got canofcrap bozod. Another lie- posting shill like BAC; someone not here to debate honestly, but to spam, shill and obfuscate with lies.
#46. To: bluedogtxn, can of corn (#13)
#47. To: can of corn (#0)
#48. To: Calamity (#37)
The record of Ron Paul, against the others, stands against this tidal wave of evil.
#49. To: Phant2000 (#48)
Yes, Paul is the only one standing against evil. For the most part, if you look closely you will see that the others ARE evil.
#50. To: Cynicom, christine (#39)
Don't tell anyone but I am so old I had an older friend that was in the Marines with Gen. Butler.
#51. To: can of corn, Zipporah, robin, rowdee, christine, lodwick, Jethro Tull, JC Harris (#43)
I always love replying to petulant folks who wish to ignore me. Actually, you're right. I think Ron Paul would like to toss illegal families and their children into the Rio Grande and say "swim for it and don't come back."
#52. To: HOUNDDAWG (#51)
#53. To: can of corn (#52)
#54. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
Who....
#55. To: can of corn (#54)
#56. To: Can 'o' corn (#55)
ROMNEY?
#57. To: corn can (#56)
Ghouliani?
#58. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
For a second I thought you were referring to Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, aka "Beastly Ben"
#59. To: corn **** (#57)
Fred Thompson?
#60. To: can of corn (#54)
(Edited)
Thompson, Romney, Giuiliani
#61. To: wudidiz (#59)
#62. To: Cynicom (#58)
Hound...
#63. To: BTP Holdings, corn dog (#61)
Fred Thompson?
#64. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
#65. To: can of corn (#64)
FRED Thompson, Not Tommy.
#66. To: can of corn (#0)
1) He's a "truther" by association - He panders and plays to that group of people who believe the events of Sep 11, were an "inside job" without going so far as to say "Fire won't melt steel!"
#67. To: BTP Holdings (#65)
So then, why Fred?
#68. To: Mister Clean (#66)
There are simply not enough 9/11 "truthers" to give him a victory.
#69. To: Mister Clean (#66)
far from gettin' banned from LP.
#70. To: can of corn (#68)
far from gettin' banned from LP.
#71. To: can of corn (#64)
#72. To: can of corn (#67)
#73. To: can of corn (#67)
He has realistic positions on free trade.
Enemies of the Republic
#74. To: Critter, can of corn (#73)
I'd like free trade to be defined here for the purpose of discussing this further.
#75. To: can of corn (#52)
He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
far from gettin' banned from LP.
#76. To: Critter (#73)
While Paul considers himself a staunch free trader, he opposed CAFTA and deplored its predecessor, NAFTA. Paul explains, "I was on the side of the protectionists, and I'm not a protectionist. It's not true free trade. It's special-interest trade. It's managed trade... I didn't like the trade deal because it was another level of government and a loss of sovereignty."
#77. To: can of corn (#52)
He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
#78. To: christine (#72)
and he's an Israelfirster!
#79. To: aristeides (#77)
who want to continue the Cold War
#80. To: can of corn (#79)
#81. To: Critter (#73)
I'm totally against free trade if free trade means that no tariffs are paid on goods imported into the USA.
#82. To: aristeides (#80)
#83. To: can of corn (#78)
Why does the latest news bar of this site look like it was cut and pasted from Stormfront?
#84. To: can of corn (#82)
And neither Korea nor Vietnam directly attcked American soil
#85. To: aristeides (#84)
#86. To: Calamity (#37)
De-population is the name of the game. Through a draft, no chippy no worky, starvation, poisoning via, food, air, water, forced immunizations, refusal of medical care, taxation, imprisonment. And worse, much worse.
#87. To: can of corn (#85)
#88. To: can of corn (#85)
(Edited)
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
#89. To: can of corn (#28)
He's either a shameless panderer or gutless on the matter.
#90. To: can of corn (#81)
Why do we want to penalize consumers by subsidizing unprofitable American businesses?
Enemies of the Republic
#91. To: Critter (#90)
#92. To: aristeides (#91)
Especially when the income tax is imposed on domestic manufacturers, but not foreign ones
Enemies of the Republic
#93. To: mirage (#89)
"What did the President know and when did he know it?"
#94. To: Critter (#90)
#95. To: can of corn (#93)
He knew it when they whispered it in his ear in the FL classroom.
#96. To: mirage (#95)
Okay. So Bush never had an intelligence briefing. Ever.
#97. To: can of corn (#96)
Yes, and I suppose he was told that on 9/11/2001 of the exact time, locations, and means we would be attacked and just forgot to do anything about it or just decided not to because he could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
#98. To: mirage (#97)
#99. To: intotheabyss (#86)
Aptly stated. :)
#100. To: can of corn (#94)
Enemies of the Republic
#101. To: can of corn (#98)
Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable.
#102. To: mirage (#101)
#103. To: can of corn (#98)
(Edited)
Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable.
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#104. To: aristeides (#102)
When a party doesn't bring forward evidence that is in his possession, it's grounds for suspecting the evidence goes against him.
#105. To: can of balls (#103)
#106. To: can of corn (#105)
They were given briefings about the possibility of hijackings with no times, dates, or places. There was nothing actionable.
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#107. To: can of balls (#106)
#108. To: can of corn (#107)
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#109. To: can of corn (#0)
#110. To: Calamity (#27)
Corn Remover
#111. To: can of corn (#0)
#112. To: PnbC (#110)
A corn like him could never abide in a Free zone.
#113. To: can of corn (#0)
#114. To: Minerva (#109)
#115. To: can of corn (#114)
his is the only screen name I've ever had here.
#116. To: can of corn (#52)
He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
#117. To: lodwick (#116)
You are out of touch with the 18th Century.
#118. To: wudidiz (#70)
#119. To: Minerva (#115)
is the only screen name I've ever had here.
#120. To: can of corn (#0)
#121. To: aristeides, Calamity, HOUNDDAWG, (#46)
Funny how can of corn uses the same quote from Ron Paul: (1) on another thread to cast doubt on the 9/11 Truth movement (because Ron Paul doesn't clearly accept it); and (2) here to explain why people should not vote for Ron Paul (because Ron Paul does not clearly reject 9/11 Truth beliefs).
#122. To: can of corn (#94)
You could not place tariffs high enough to replace our income tax system with them. In fact if you tried, you'd have to place tariffs so high that foreign products would be priced out of the market place with heir import being dried up. You'd have to have other means of revenue anyway PLUS the consumer would be screwed.
#123. To: can of corn (#85)
(Edited)
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
#124. To: Arator (#123)
After what we've done to Iraq, why should the rest of the world take chances on us?
#125. To: tom007 (#124)
(Edited)
But besides that??
#126. To: Arator (#123)
After what we've done to Iraq, why should the rest of the world take chances on us?
#127. To: can of corn (#85)
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
#128. To: can of corn (#94)
You could not place tariffs high enough to replace our income tax system with them. In fact if you tried, you'd have to place tariffs so high that foreign products would be priced out of the market place with heir import being dried up. You'd have to have other means of revenue anyway PLUS the consumer would be screwed
#129. To: rowdee (#121)
Would it be terribly wrong of me to desire that fence sitters such as the can in question should in the process of straddling that damned fence crush his widdle ol' niblets as fair and just treatment for liars?
#130. To: rowdee (#122)
OTOH, your answer is more and more taxation or revenue enhancements!
#131. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#10)
He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East.
Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. - Andre Marrou
#132. To: can of corn (#0)
(Edited)
#133. To: can of corn (#0)
4) He's for gay marriage, but against gay adoption. - Here we are total polar opposites. I'm against gay marriage because it brings nothing to the state, but for gay adoption because any stable home for a child is better than a foster home or orphanage.
#134. To: bluedogtxn, Can of Crap (#12)
#135. To: noone222, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, robin, Diana, Jethro Tull (#133)
I'm against gay marriage because it brings nothing to the state, but for gay adoption because any stable home for a child is better than a foster home or orphanage.
#136. To: HOUNDDAWG, all power to the people, can I have a witness? (#135)
#137. To: Jethro Tull (#136)
I have no problem whatsoever w/people that enjoy sex behind the privacy of their bedroom door. However, I have a large problem with the thought of two men adopting a young boy and raising him as their son. It’s way weird and I have no problem with state or federal powers stopping such an arrangement.
#138. To: Minerva, IndieTX (#115)
(Edited)
#139. To: rowdee (#122)
(Edited)
Can of Crap
#140. To: IndieTX (#139)
If everyone bozos him, he'll go the way of BAC.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#141. To: who knows what evil (#140)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest