See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: 4um poll. Are there any here who consider themselves a D? An R?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 14, 2008
Author: me
Post Date: 2008-04-14 10:55:39 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 3153
Comments: 242
I'm thinking we have some died in the wool Ds, and that might explain, in part, the Obama pimping.
Poster Comment: I'm a reformed R, who now is a electoral non-participant.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-84) not displayed.
.
.
.
#85. To: christine (#83)
Amen.
There's actually no realistic scenario wherein the Hildabeast can become POTUS in January 2009...MUD
Wouldn't it be kewel if BigJohn got a face tattoo, too?
True, but what they fear even more is an alerted armed populace. We need both, and we need to keep cool heads and keep pushing - alerting and waking people up to the true, and real, danger they are in. Too many people do not want to look e.g., I have a good friend, who owned a very successful machine tool business, who will not look at or believe how many innocent people have been murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan - because it disagrees with the world view implanted by the lamestream media. He thinks McInsane is a good choice because he will continue the "Waronterra" as he has accepted the false rationale sold for it. He is not a stupid man, but he is "afraid to look" at the reality because it is too awful for him to confront.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Wouldn't it be kewel if BigJohn got a face tattoo, too? I'm thinking a "Darth Maul" tatoo would be appropriate.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
People who deny reality are insane.
God is always good!
I would say irrational not strictly insane - but it is not survival behavior. Insane, is like a Booosh, seeing a reality that is not there.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I would like people to see how both parties are implementing the manifesto, but let's face it.. obama's voting record is farther left than the rest. I don't know if it's worth the effort to post and debate or just post and let people read. Obama was endorsed by Kerry, who was endorsed by the Commie party. Castro came out for Obama. Communism tears down our society as we continue to fund theirs. There was a bill in CA a week ago or so to ban the outlawing of the Commie party. I just want to reiterate, I'm for ALL OF US, not some of us. I want our country to survive.. I realize the odds have passed, but for Gods sake, I'd like to see a few more clear thinking intelligent people understand this pissy two party game is one to DESTROY US ALL. The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals From Greg Swank 12-4-2 You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. http://www.rense.com Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 . Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America. At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen: [From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen] 1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. 5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. 7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N. 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N. 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms." 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art." 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch." 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old- fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems. 43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal. 45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet. It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point. Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library. Sources are listed below. Microfilm: California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408)924-2770 Microfilm Call Number: J 11.R5 Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1- A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12 By Greg Swank 12-4-2 Over the years, I have shared in debates and discussions regarding the current state of affairs in the U.S., and the changing social climate of this great nation. Since the "baby-boomer" generation, society and its culture have become noticeably different than the way it was 50 years ago. From the late 50's to the 70's a series of events took place contributing to the way we are currently living. However, like anything else, there has to be a starting point at which the wheels are put into motion. Sometimes it can be a single event, such as war, but more often, it is a series of events, some intentional, some planned, others unpredictable. There is always a pivotal point when things begin to change. I believe that time was 1963. For my generation, some of the following will certainly stir old memories. If you born later, this may serve as a brief history lesson into the times your parents traveled through. By 1963 television was the leading sources of entertainment. The public enjoyed a different type of programming back then. Lessons on life could be viewed weekly on "Leave it to Beaver" or "My Three Sons." There were hero's back then that never drew blood, "The Lone Ranger" and "The Adventures of Superman." Cartoon series evolved, such as, "The Flintstones" and "The Jetsons" without messages of empowering the children, using vulgarities or demeaning parental guidance. Family's could spend a weekend evening watching "Ed Sullivan," "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke." For those who enjoyed thrill and suspense, we were blessed with "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and the "Twilight Zone." 'My Favorite Martian," "Ozzie and Harriet," "Donna Reed" and "Sea Hunt" also kept viewers entertained weekly. Movie theaters were not multiplex units with 15 screens, rather, one single, giant big screen with adequate sound and hard seats without springs. "Tom Jones" had won the Academy award for best picture. "How The West Was Won," "Cleopatra," "Lily of the Fields," "The Great Escape," "The Birds," and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" were all box office hits. By years end, "The Beatles" had played for the British Royal Family and were laying the groundwork to conquer the U.S. the following year. Eric Clapton began his journey to fame with Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Jim McCarty and their band, "The Yardbirds." Out on the west coast the surf was beginning to rock'n'roll with "The Beach Boys" and their first song to reach the top ten list, "Surfin' U.S.A." "Joys of Jell-O" recipes for quivering florescent foodstuff hit the stores. U.S. Postal rates went up to five cents for the first ounce. AT&T introduced touch-tone telephones. The Yankees played in the World Series again; but lost to the Dodgers in four straight. The government and NASA began the Apollo program. This is just a brief snapshot of some things that were going on back in 1963. Remember? While some of these events played an important role in the direction of change that affect us today, many of them were lost to much greater, more political events, that I believe put everything into motion. On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. 5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states. 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art." 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." 27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch." 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal. You can see the entire list on this web page - http://www.truthtrek.net/politics/takeover.htm Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is under some kind of Communist control, but what I do find frightening, is of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass. Remember this was in January 1963. In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict. By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned. So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States. Which brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this most provocative year. On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional. While American's have endured great prosperity over the past 40 years we have also lost our moral compass and direction. In reviewing the research, data supports 1963 as a focal point, demonstrating a downward slope in our moral and social decline through 2001. Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963. But there is always "hope." As always, I welcome your comments and can easily be reached. Thanks for the response to "Daddy, What's Fluoride?" My email is: greg@truthtrek.net Comment From Founders' America foundersamerica@hotmail.com 12-7-2 Jeff...adding a couple of my own numbers: __ 46. Import anti-white racists from the Third World, via an open-borders policy, then force their integration to divide and conquer white Western civilization in North America. __ 47. Feminize and disarm both the citizenry and military; especially disarm white males. Founders' America P.O. Box 71024 Richmond, Va 23255
Obama was signalling that in his statement the other day. While almost at the same time, Mayor Nutter was moving that effort forward. He's getting pushback, but there is no mistaking Obama's position on gun control. People should look up his votes on this, his comments about it... and I have suggested that Hillary and McCain are no better, so look up their positions too.
I’ve always considered myself a Real ”Old Guard” Republican or Eisenhower Republican, the party that had no use for Jews or Israel. How times have changed!
Novak: Obama's Second- Amendment Dance. Sounds like a nuanced position to me.
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.
Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Obama has not stated his position. Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance. That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law. Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not to the degree Obama has. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College on Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He has repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee news conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms." That would imply that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I concluded in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law." On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution." That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column. Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F." There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington.
Ditto.
Well, I suspect he doesn't care enough about the issue to expend political capital on it. In any case, someone with his views on the issue is not likely to change the status quo much on it. Any more than the Bush Justice Department (which takes precisely the position Novak ascribes to Obama) has. I don't like that D.C. law myself (and, as someone who works in D.C., it matters to me). But I can live with it. I'm much more concerned about ending the war in Iraq and the Bush regime's violations of civil liberties. And so, I take it, is Obama.
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.
In any case, someone with his views on the issue is not likely to change the status quo much on it. Any more than the Bush Justice Department (which takes precisely the position Novak ascribes to Obama) has. I don't like that D.C. law myself (and, as someone who works in D.C., it matters to me). But I can live with it. I'm much more concerned about ending the war in Iraq and the Bush regime's violations of civil liberties. And so, I take it, is Obama. We are at the point where all domestic issues are passed over to focus on the WOT. We are bankrupt in part as a result. I don't believe we will affect the plans that will move forward in the ME, by a nit (could be wrong, but that's how I feel). But we must focus on the domestic raping, pillaging as well as the self inflicted deaths by many cuts. Not one in DC cares if we survive this or not. Our existence is an obstacle, and they keep coming up with plans to help us kill each other off, slap a label on it, and rally the dumasses to pick a side. How about 'us' being on the same side? Too much to ask? 20% will get 80% of us 86'd.
gtg, back later.
Doesn't care enough about it to expend political capital... He cares more about his political capital then to reveal his position is more like it. That's why the big brouhahah over his comments at the no press political capital fundraiser. He's a hypocrite.
Idiotic post of an American hating tool who is too stupid to do anything but post Conservative style hate and Hannity talking points. Mud, why do you think everyone laughs up their cuff at you? Is it because of your laser like insight or because you come off like a mind controlled moron - like you just did above?
.
Hey Mud, in 2004, right before the 2004 election, right before the Party fooled your moronic ass into voting for Bush the SECOND time, you told us that Bush would get the deficit cleaned up right after the election. So how's he doing? Were you correct or did the Republican establishment make an idiot out of you in public again?
.
The ruling elite can't have either our civil liberties or constitutional rights as long as we're armed. To date, the liberties and rights we've lost has been on a voluntary basis. Given Obama's position on the 2nd, we'll no longer have that option. It's been said America can come back from a socialist government, but can we come back from a government who has disarmed us? Now, put on your best Bronx accent and please give us a yes or no to that question.
We need a time machine.
The Bush Justice Department has taken precisely the same position on the D.C. gun law that Novak says Obama has taken on the Second Amendment. I don't think we can come back from a government that has successfully disarmed us. But I see no reason to believe that a President Obama will do that any more than Bush or preceding presidents, including Democratic ones, have done. Democrats learned from electoral losses in the 1990's to be gun-shy on Second Amendment issues. So I see the Second Amendment as very much a secondary issue. I'm more concerned about the civil liberties that the Bush regime has taken from us and about the wars of aggression that it has launched.
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.
Ari... It is painful day after day to read that you actually believe there is a two party system in this country. Perhaps if you were to unchain your mind from the delusion fed to you for so many years, you might be able to change perspective.
I'm with you, although I did vote for Ron Paul in the latest republican primary. I voted constitution party in 04 (Peroutka/Baldwin). I may vote for Don Grundmann for president in 08, (www.truthusa.org) if he gets the Constituion Party nomination. if not, i probably wont vote. the Constituion Party has been pushing neocon candidates such as Jerome Corsi (admitted former israeli govt employee) and Alan 'bring back the draft' keyes. Shame. I'm still a registered republican and never changed my R registration. when i talk to people about 911 being an inside job i state that I'm a Catholic republican, but that it's not about D v R or any such nonsense, its about the truth and that the new world order is run by evil devil worshipers, including the bushes, who are nothing but satanic puppets. If Catholics in particular want to argue i ask them why they still support the war despire the fact their own Pope, including the previous Pope, have been steadfast against the undeclared Iraq 'war' and called it a 'DEFEAT FOR HUMANITY'. The war does not meet the criteria for the just war doctrine , which is outlined in the official Catholic catechism. So I ask them, who exactly do you worship, Jesus Christ or the state? 'You reject the church's position and have chosen to worship the state.'. I also tell them to educate themselves on the church's numerous encyclicals on freemasonry ("THEIR GOD IS THE DEVIL'), that is what the church teaches. So why are they pawns for skull & bones freemasonic satanists? and also, george bush senior attacks on the Pope while he was in congres, and his demand for global population control. RUBBERS GOES TO CONGRESS www.tarpley.net/bush10.htm THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE H W BUSH - BY WEBSTER TARPLEY MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." MCCAIN: 'HILLARY CAN STILL PULL IT OFF'; **Exclusive**
I have come to believe that labels like "Conservative" or "Liberal" and party identification like "Republican" or "Democrat" are purposely divisive and contribute directly to the deterioration of our society. The party and idealogical elites want to see a divided population.........we're so much easier to control when we're all pissed at one another. Just read some of the posts here and on other sites; you'll see a one or two post exchange before the name calling and the condescension begins. This sort of culture has led us to the sorry state in which we reside.
Resist!
Insert just a couple of trolls into a forum, and you can stir up all sorts of dissension. I think Zionists would have a real interest in doing that to a forum like this one.
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 haven't counted the number of "us" on this thread, but I'm pleasantly surprised. Their two party scam and (s)elections have become a transparent bread and circus. To vote for anyone but the most qualified candidate, despite their chances of victory, is to sell out to the system, IMO.
I agree about the illusion of party labels. Can anyone look at the McCain and Hillary pic/story above and think there isn't one National Party with two wings?
Have you ever watched a round of layoffs in a major corporation? The company picks off the people one by one and the ones remaining hide under their desks and try to stay invisible - or they nark out other people trying to buy favor until the ax falls on them. The company breaks age discrimination laws and every other employment law in the book as they know no insider will testify against them. And the people they've already screwed over don't make good witnesses. Eventually, even the most craven boot licker gets screwed in the ass and the department is cleaned out. After seeing this bunch perform in corporate world time and time again, I just don't see them spontaneously rising up into a bloody gun fight with the government. And I know an easy way to stop a confrontation of this sort if it ever happens, have AM Radio announce that anyone photographed at the confrontation will lose their job. And it will be easy to get informants to simply pick up the agitators and few willing to fight. Look at Mudboy, he's dumb and loyal to the government no matter what the government does. All the government has to do is tell him everyone on earth is a lib except for him and he would be a willing tool for the fascists. That's how the Nazis controlled France, one or two informants per village and it was over for the resistance. And suppose a miracle happened and people did rise up. How would a fat Texan with a shotgun fare against a modern army? Look to Mogudishu for an example. 2000 killed for 19 government casualties. And here the civilians were better armed than Americans, full auto AK-47s, RPGs and grenades. And the soldiers were only trying to leave - not to inflict major damage. My point is that I don't think the elites are very worried about people having guns - save for the crime angle. They certainly arn't worried about armed resistance. It's the people in hick Pennsylvania that are as hysterical about guns as they are about two queers in the tenderloin getting married.
.
Can anyone look at the McCain and Hillary pic/story above and think there isn't one National Party with two wings? Well put, my friend. And maddeningly accurate.
Resist!
So your argument is since we're not going to use them, we might as well ignore the laws they cook up for us? I've said it before publicly and I'll say it again; I'll shoot any government agent who comes for my guns. If I'm the only one, so be it. It won't matter much to me given where I'll be spending eternity after the event. And how does this argument explains Mr. O's willingness to make it a crime for a person to defend his/her home? His advancement of that legislation is enough to eliminate him from serious discussion.
. Thats "Hick" to you sir.
While I won't discount the truth of your statement, I think there are also regular folks who just aren't intelligent enough to think beyond their self-identification, and are too insecure to consider anyone with a different viewpoint anything but a threat. I'm certain that there are "plants" in public forums, but I'm also certain that on many forums the "trolls" are actually the owners, managers, and mods. (certainly not true of this 4um, Christine is NOT part of the problem)
Resist!
Back in your hidey hole, rube.
Ah ha, company man, huh????
Know what? When the slicks make war, they always think of us first and give first class tickets to the fight, so that means they kinda like us, huh?
The real problem is see with the focus on guns is that they provide a false sense of security to powerless, dumb people. I saw this recently with a kid who had signed an employment contract that gave the corporation a right to screw him over for the rest of his natural life - on a whim. If a manager didn't like him, the contract gave the manager a right to disrupt the kids employment at other companies for ten years. When I tried to explain this to the kid, he got mad and took the position that nobody could do that to him. When I pointed out that the company had a perfect right to do it and that they had screwed people this way before, the kid he had guns and would take to the street before that happened to him. I knew this was the end of the story. I also knew the kid would just get screwed like the kid before him and the kid before that. And the kid, with a new baby and a mortgage, would never take to the street. The point here is that the kid pounded his chest and ranted about his gun instead of going in and getting the contract amended. Which he could have done and which would have served him much better. I've seen the same thing happen when the government takes away people's constitutional rights. Instead of doing something effective to stop the process, the powerless dumb people pound their chests, rant about their guns and then go back to watching the game on TV. As I said before, the elites don't care if these people have guns. It placates these people and the guns pose no real threat to the elites.
.
They even give us big guns to shoot strangers with (just don't shoot a burglar when you return. Obama the Magnificent takes exception).
Golly thats what they did to us in 1950, first class airfare to Korea, gave us beeg guns and said, "do your DUTY, kill those gooks". I did wonder what was MY duty...
Comments (126 - 242) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestno matter what, we cannot as a populace be disarmed. that is still the only thing that the tyrants fear.
#86. To: lodwick (#84)
#87. To: Original_Intent (#65)
"I think Mike Tyson would be more of a soul match for McInsane..."
#88. To: christine, Peppa, farmfriend, Cynicom, robin, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, Kamala, HOUNDDAWG, James Deffenbach, Percy Dovetonsils, Pinguinite, ratcat, Palo Verde, aristeides, all (#83)
...no matter what, we cannot as a populace be disarmed. that is still the only thing that the tyrants fear.
#89. To: Mudboy Slim (#87)
"I think Mike Tyson would be more of a soul match for McInsane..."
#90. To: Original_Intent (#88)
He is not a stupid man, but he is "afraid to look" at the reality because it is too awful for him to confront.
#91. To: RickyJ (#90)
People who deny reality are insane.
#92. To: iconoclast (#51)
Well many, if not most, Republicans have not had a problem with calling Democrats communists for many years ... it appears obvious to me that they aren't very close to calling Republicans the fascist plutocrats that they have morphed into.
1963- The Year That Changed America
#93. To: Original_Intent (#88)
True, but what they fear even more is an alerted armed populace. We need both, and we need to keep cool heads and keep pushing - alerting and waking people up to the true, and real, danger they are in.
#94. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
#95. To: Peppa (#93)
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
#96. To: aristeides (#95)
Sounds like a nuanced position to me.
As a Constitutional lecturer, he should well know, rights of self defense are God given, not government given. The nuanced tap-dancing doesn't show leadership. It reveals he is unwilling to take a position that could cut off his career. It has nothing to do with what his Constitutionally correct. IMO>
#97. To: Hayek Fan (#79)
I've never voted for a Democrat.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#98. To: Peppa (#96)
The nuanced tap-dancing doesn't show leadership.
#99. To: aristeides (#95)
A few more opinions by multiple sources about Obama's stance on CC.
#100. To: aristeides (#98)
Well, I suspect he doesn't care enough about the issue to expend political capital on it.
#101. To: All (#100)
#102. To: aristeides (#98)
Well, I suspect he doesn't care enough about the issue to expend political capital on it.
#103. To: Mudboy Slim (#81)
(Edited)
Idiotic wishful thinking of a Leftist RAT, imho...MUD
#104. To: Mudboy Slim (#81)
diotic wishful thinking of a Leftist RAT, imho...MUD
#105. To: aristeides (#98)
I'm much more concerned about ending the war in Iraq and the Bush regime's violations of civil liberties.
#106. To: karelian (#94)
#107. To: Jethro Tull (#105)
Given Obama's position on the 2nd, we'll no longer have that option.
#108. To: aristeides (#107)
I don't think we can come back from a government that has successfully disarmed us. But I see no reason to believe that a President Obama will do that any more than Bush or preceding presidents, including Democratic ones, have done. Democrats learned from electoral losses in the 1990's to be gun-shy on Second Amendment issues.
#109. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
I'm a reformed R, who now is a electoral non-participant.
Bush declared: "I have decided to give my vigorous support for population control in both the United States and the world." He also lashed out at the Pope. "For those of us who who feel so strongly on this issue, the recent enyclical was most discouraging." In 1967, Bush called for "having the government agencies work even more closely with going private agencies such as Planned Parenthood."
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#110. To: Cynicom (#108)
SENATOR PREFERS CLINTON CONTEST
Mon Apr 14 2008 10:46:19 ET
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has confided to his inner circle that Hillary Clinton may yet be the Democratic nominee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, a development the senator from Arizona would personally welcome!
"Look, I know something about long odds, they had me written off last summer," McCain explained over the weekend, according to a top source.
McCain would prefer to go up against Clinton in the general election, insiders reveal.
He has instructed his campaign staff to "chill out" on countering Hillary Clinton's torrent of claims and promises as primary voting comes to an end over the next 6 weeks.
McCain made the tactical decision to downplay Clinton's tale of Bosnia sniper fire, leaving some McCain staffers frustrated and perplexed.
Instead, the critical focus has been on Barack Obama. McCain's official website features 14 press releases taking on Obama since the first of the year, only 3 for the former first lady.
Developing...
#111. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
Are there any here who consider themselves a D? An R?
#112. To: WhiteGuy (#111)
Just read some of the posts here and on other sites; you'll see a one or two post exchange before the name calling and the condescension begins.
#113. To: Artisan (#109)
I'm with you, although I did vote for Ron Paul in the latest republican primary. I voted constitution party in 04 (Peroutka/Baldwin).
#114. To: WhiteGuy (#111)
#115. To: Jethro Tull (#105)
(Edited)
The ruling elite can't have either our civil liberties or constitutional rights as long as we're armed.
#116. To: Jethro Tull (#114)
#117. To: ... (#115)
#118. To: ... (#115)
It's the people in hick Pennsylvania that are as hysterical about guns as they are about two queers in the tenderloin getting married.
#119. To: aristeides, Christine (#112)
Insert just a couple of trolls into a forum, and you can stir up all sorts of dissension.
#120. To: Cynicom (#118)
#121. To: WhiteGuy (#119)
(certainly not true of this 4um, Christine is NOT part of the problem)
#122. To: Jethro Tull (#120)
Back in your hidey hole, rube.
#123. To: Jethro Tull (#105)
The ruling elite can't have either our civil liberties or constitutional rights as long as we're armed.
#124. To: Cynicom (#122)
#125. To: Jethro Tull (#124)
They even give us big guns to shoot strangers with (just don't shoot a burglar when you return. Obama the Magnificent takes exception).
.
.
.