See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat
Source:
Rockwell
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 19, 2008
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2008-05-19 09:39:44 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 1899
Comments: 154
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: Jethro Tull, Cynicom (#11)
You know, I don't remember predicting that. I remember reporting that Mike Gravel indicated in a radio interview that he was open to the possibility. I remember expressing the opinion that such a ticket would be a good thing. I suppose it's possible I said Ron Paul might choose Gravel, although I don't remember going that far. But, if I predicted that he would, it has entirely slipped my memory. If you can show me that I did, I will of course admit that I was wrong. Meanwhile, Cynicom has yet to admit that he was wrong in predicting that Obama would be Hillary's vice presidential running mate. I believe other people posting here have predicted the same thing.
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.
do you think Hillary is definitely out? or that it's still out of the realm of possibility that they will share the ticket? i'm not so sure that she's not the selection of the PTB.
Why shouldn't they ? If someone as 'intellectual' as you all pretend to be can embrace the dark side and lick the boots of a racist, elitist, Establishment Marxist Communist...what would lead anyone to believe it wouldn't swing the other way for the Establishment. The number of "Principled" America firsters on 4um might be the minority. If it were my site, I'd kill your accounts and salt your IP addresses then repeat as necessary...
You're in the top 3, you should've been named. My apologies for forgetting you exist...
I don't concede him the nomination (Wallace, Bobby Kennedy) until the final bell - never mind whom he chooses as VP.
But, if I predicted that he would, it has entirely slipped my memory. If you can show me that I did, I will of course admit that I was wrong. "I don't recall."
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Is Hillary out of the running?
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
In this case, the evidence is available to anyone who wants to do a search on this site. I'm reasonably sure none will be found.
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.
Has Ron Paul decided on his VP choice yet?
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.
More assassination talk? Let's grant your wish, and suppose assassination prevents Obama from getting the presidential nomination. Can you conceive of him getting the VP nomination under those circumstances?
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.
what is this, ari? JT or anyone else here is not permitted to mention anything that happened in history or speculate that a similar event could occur without your insinuations that it's somehow a threat? this is an attempt by you to harm this forum and its posters, imo. am i wrong in assuming that this is your intent?
That's not assassination talk? If it isn't, pray tell how it is relevant to the discussion here.
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.
answer my questions.
My intent is to get people to stop making irresponsible insinuations about assassination. Shaming them seems to be the best way to do it.
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.
Don't hold your breath.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Yes. American and global politics are about CHANGE. Now take heart, such change won't be from THIS keyboard commando. I'm a simple political yapper who has been around long enough to know how a well placed bullet has changed history. Now please unbunch those panties of yours. Assassination is as American as apple pie - Hughie Newton
How lawyerly of you. Regular people say, "I never said or implied such a thing."
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
A question with a question...my you're in fine form today. Did I suggest he had?
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Paul Wellstone.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Please point to anywhere on this forum where i have mentioned I want this?
oh, so Mr PC is determining what is irresponsible and what is an insinuation about assassination. your attempt to take an innocuous comment like the one you cited as an insinuation or threat is harrassment and appears purposefully done to malign.
Sonny Bono, and the list goes on and on.
Assassination: as American as Apple Pie (and Torture) By Alexander Cockburn More than one CounterPuncher has urged me to thank Pat Robertson, along the lines of Diane Christian's excellent piece on our site today, from the bottom of our hearts. Why? As David Nebenzahl of Oakland wrote us, Because Robertson's original loose-cannon remark gives us such clear insight into how things really work in this world. First of all, his proposal confirms that this precise thing has been done in the past: Allende, Mossadegh, ... [insert list of assassination targets here] despite Don Rumsfeld's pious denials. Secondly, he confirms our (the United States') implicit right to petroleum resources wherever they may be found, as shown by his comment about how offing Chavez probably wouldn't disrupt oil deliveries. What about that list of targets of assassination bids by the CIA, acting on presidential orders that David wants us to insert? We could start with the bid on Chou en Lai's life after the Bandung Conference in 1954; move on to the disposal in 1960 of Iraq's Kassim by the Ba'athists helped into power by the CIA, then to the efforts, ultimately successful in 1961 to kill the Congo's Patrice Lumumba Lumumba, in which the CIA was intimately involved; to the Kennedy years saw similar implication in the murder of the Diem brothers in Vietnam and the first of many well attested efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro; almost certainly to Omar Torrijos of Panama, downed in an air crash; to the Reagan White House's the carefully planned effort to bomb Muammar Q'addafi to death in his encampment in 1986. In his Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II Bill Blum has a long and interesting list starting in 1949 with Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader, going on to efforts to kill Sukarno, President of Indonesia, Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea, Mohammed Mossadegh, Claro M. Recto (the Philippines opposition leadr), Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Norodom Sihanouk, José Figueres, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Gen. Rafael Trujillo, Charles de Gaulle, Salvador Allende, Michael Manley, Ayatollah Khomeini, the nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt), Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein. ********* Why don't you write to Alexander Cockburn and try to shame him too?
You didn't answer my question. If (Wallace, Bobby Kennedy) is not assassination talk, what is it, and how is it relevant to the discussion in this thread?
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.
and Commies need dying. On this thread, which was precisely about the assassination of 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.
I asked if it was "assassination talk". Which it is.
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 brought it up in #17. In both cases a front running D was shot. In the case of Kennedy, he was killed. I repeat; political assassination in terms of our history and global history is a reality and a valid topic of discussion. Your anaemic attempt to connect it to me is funny. I urge you to please call Homeland Security if you feel a threat has been made. I'd love talking to those 'holes and reporting the recorded results back here :P
I urge you to report this threat and *please* be the complaining witness. Have you the balls?
Well, free speech should allow the rest of us to complain about assassination talk, I should think.
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.
Haven't you noticed ? You little Commie b!tches are allowed free reign on Freedom4um...
ari,
your "complaint' is that such talk exists. Like all censors, you work
diligently to stifle out our 1A. Shame on you and anyone who thinks such
censorship is American.
Lew Rockwell had it right. What the GOP advocates isn't conservatism at all, it's "Red State Fascism." Does Commentary or any other neoconservative magazine ever print anything that Taft or Coolidge would agree with? Probably not.
I agree. They may be holding the paperless voting machines as their hole card because the GOP wants to run their highly outraged moralistic campaign against easy targets, the oh so wormy Bill and Hillary. If Obama wins the nomination then millions of bux in already-produced-and-in-the-can campaign ads will have to be discarded, and the GOP will be dead in the water. The only thing they could harp on would be Obama's relative lack of experience, because what they really want to say, (he's black and therefore less qualified and don't forget to count the silverware, he's loyal to Arabs instead of Jews, He'll be pawing the white wimmen in the Oval Office! OMG! HOW CAN YOU SLEEP KNOWING THAT??? and, he may have "unusual appetites" that are completely unacceptable for Democrats who haven't had enough "Jeremiads and lightning bolts religious upbringing" to dew it in the dark and then be ashamed about it) are all off limits for reasons of which you're well aware.
What a whiny little monotone parrot you are. Who cares, I mean who gives a rat's ass what you would do if you were owner of 4UM? Well assFOH, you ain't the owner, OK? A dog barking at the end of a tether is just a role that someone with the opinion they have of themselves should be doing, so do us all a favor; go start your own forum then. Oh yes, but that is right; you would be there all alone with nobody to belittle of insult to amuse you. So it's a given you would never do that.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Now Mr. ari, if memory serves you're an OXFORD educated attorney, and at the very least the beneficiary of a frightfully pricey education. Your incessant reliance on tactics that would be actionable in court and in state bar proceedings is clearly indicative of your frustration with your own impotence. You may not know this but, CarolOnTheWeb once wrote "I wish (George HW BUSH) was dead!" and was immediately visited by the secret service. When she answered the door and was asked about her comment she replied, "Yes, I wrote it, do you want to arrest me now?" or words to that effect while extending her arms for cuffing. After several failed attempts to intimidate this feisty gal, the secret service said "We just want to make sure that you aren't a threat to the president!" and left with no apology or repudiation from her. JT sometimes employs a tactic that keeps the SPLC and their dutiful DOJ friendlies in states of flux. He reminds them that their plans to shove their Amerika down our throats can be derailed and despite the climate of fear they've wrought upon the nation there are and will always be some people who aren't afraid to remind the enemy that their big plans are not a given. One has to admire Hal Turner on this point. he has his enemies foaming at the mouth, and he can actually take credit for turning the senate around on a "death to America" immigration vote by publishing senators' home addresses and phone numbers! I didn't hear anyone of your political ilk complain when a national news reporter (on Geraldo's show) stood in front of Thom Metzger's home and showed the best place for a sniper to get a clean shot! So, you can knock that shit off anytime now. And, if you cannot satisfactorily counter any of the points that are so upsetting to you with stand up debate, then would you please concede the inherent flaws in your position and behave like a world class lawyer instead of an anonymous, dirty trickster hack?
If the law allows JT to say what he does, how can my words about what he says be actionable?
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.
The reason I am leaving the party and why I won't vote for McCain.
Hal Turner: FBI Agent Provocateur? Henry See Dave Neiwert at Orincus recently wrote a blog post describing how rabid, right-wing talk show host Hal Turner was outed as an FBI agent when hackers found incriminating emails on his server. Neiwert cites a report from the SPLC that says in part: On Jan. 1, unidentified hackers electronically confronted Turner in the forum of his website for "The Hal Turner Show." After a heated exchange, they told Turner that they had successfully hacked into his server and found correspondence with an FBI agent who is apparently Turner’s handler. Then they posted an alleged July 7 E-mail to the agent in which Turner hands over a message from someone who sent in a death threat against Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.). "Once again," Turner writes to his handler, "my fierce rhetoric has served to flush out a possible crazy." In what is allegedly a portion of another E-mail, Turner discusses the money he is paid. On Thursday, as the E-mail exchange was heatedly discussed on a major neo-Nazi website, Turner suddenly announced he was quitting political work. "I hereby separate from the ‘pro-White’ movement," he said, adding that he was ending his radio show immediately. "I will no longer involve myself in any aspect of it." Paid agents who spread disinformation is a topic we return to over and over again at SOTT and on our forum. Why is it that people are so gullible, that they refuse to admit the possibility? The use of provocateurs goes back thousands of years. Why should we think it is any different today, or that it only happens elsewhere? Hal Turner’s job was to be a right-winger nutzoid agent, but there are such agents on the left, in the so-called 911 Truth Movement, and in every other channel by which information is broadcast and transmitted. Disinformation is pervasive. It is the water in which we swim every day. The water is filled with sharks who play whatever tune they are are paid to play. The only way to see it is to be aware that it exists and to THINK! We have to use our critical capacities and understand the system in which we live. The system is controlled by powerful forces that act through corporations, government, intelligence agencies, police forces and the courts, the education system, and on and on. Why would they leave alone alternative news sources, sources that could potentially work to unite normal people against the pathocrats? They would never leave such channels free. On the contrary, they would spend large sums of money to control them to ensure that the only news that people receive keeps them within the bounds that are permissible in the pathocracy. Opposition must be controlled. People need to have the appearance of free speech and of a certain choice in where they get their information. That is just part of the capitalist marketplace that promotes the illusion that it is your choice in what you consume that makes you free. News and information are no different. But that means that even news and information that appears to be oppositional must really be held within certain acceptable boundaries. That is why critical thought and analysis are so important. Nothing can be accepted at face value. Just because someone claims that they are in opposition doesn’t mean that he or she really is. If they are not exposed, they become Pied Pipers leading their followers deeper and deeper into the swamp. Anger at current policies and injustices can be used and then spent to fuel pointless and even dangerous responses that accomplish nothing positive and that in fact simply make the situation worse and feed into the long-term plans of the pathocrats. An example is what Neiwert calls "exterminationist rhetoric": the calls to violence that we hear from so many right wing talking heads. Turner may have gone far beyond what we hear from the pundits on Fox News, but he lays the groundwork and pushes the boundaries. As part of his job, Hal Turner took positions were extreme, calling for people to take the law in their own hands up to the point of murder. He was being paid out of your pocket books and wallets. However, his rhetoric was just a bit more extreme than the nonsense one hears from Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter when they also speak of violence against liberals, even if they claim they are joking and shrug it off. Turner paves the way, pushing the limit on what is permissible. It is a dangerous game. And he was doing it as his job for the FBI. Moreover, it only takes a few agents like Turner to influence others, to set an agenda, to set an example on what is permissible and what is not in terms of "exterminationist rhetoric". Such extremes can be used to justify paramoralisms from the mouths of the likes of Malkin and Coulter. When psychopaths and other deviants assume the major roles in society, we all become infected by their conscienceless world view. It permeates every corner of life from politics to professional sport, from entertainment to the education system. To pull oneself out of it is hard work. It means being continually aware. There are people, like former FBI agent Mike German cited in the Neiwert peice, who then call for a public airing of questions, because they are shocked that the FBI or the government would go so far: Potok also spoke with Mike German, a former undercover FBI agent whose work I once covered. "This certainly raises a whole lot of questions that need to be answered in a public forum," he said. "There are strict rules about what an informant is allowed to do, and certainly encouraging or instigating others to commit acts of violence is far beyond what FBI agents should have their informants doing. Aside from the fact that you’re possibly encouraging someone to commit an act of violence, there’s also the danger that you’re actually entrapping that person, which means he would get off." German would like to draw a line somewhere between informants and provocateurs. He thinks the first are necessary while the second go too far. But isn’t the idea of informants itself pretty sick? Doesn’t it suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with society? Neiwert concludes his article with: This deserves to be a significant scandal. We’ll see if the press can divert its attention long enough from Britney Spears to bring it to the public’s attention. The answer to Neiwert’s rhetorical question is obvious. Of course not. But until one understands the true nature of the US political and economic system, that it is completely pathological, one will not realize that such appeals will amount to nothing. That is why information such as this must be put into the larger context as we attempt to do here at SOTT. Until one is able to look at the reality as it is and see the true depth of the horror, until the truth of the unmitigated terror of our situation has knocked the wind out of one’s gut, we will continue to look for solutions that are part of the problem and well within the official limits set by the pathocrats for what the opposition may or may not do. But don’t think I am suggesting we need to take arms. This is not a battle cry for revolution, for revolution, too, falls within the bounds of what is permitted. One group of deviants replacing another doesn’t change anything in the long run, it merely perpetuates the myth that violence is the answer and reinforces the enslavement of normal people to the pathocrats. The first step in real change is to understand what normal people are up against. For that, there is no better place to start than the book Political Ponerology, A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes by Andrew Aobaczewski available from Red Pill Press.
Comments (54 - 154) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLet me bring you back to your last political prognostication; Ron Paul would choose Mike Gravel as his VP.
#14. To: aristeides (#13)
#15. To: aristeides, ferret mike, ALL COMMIE DECONSTRUCTIONIST AMERICA-HATING LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DOUCHEBAGS (#10)
Let's wait and see how many come out in support of McCain before Election Day. (I expect quite a few to do so.)
#16. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#15)
#17. To: aristeides (#13)
Meanwhile, Cynicom has yet to admit that he was wrong in predicting that Obama would be Hillary's vice presidential running mate. I believe other people posting here have predicted the same thing
#18. To: aristeides (#13)
I remember expressing the opinion that such a ticket would be a good thing. I suppose it's possible I said Ron Paul might choose Gravel, although I don't remember going that far.
#19. To: aristeides (#13)
Cynicom has yet to admit that he was wrong in predicting that Obama would be Hillary's vice presidential running mate.
#20. To: angle (#18)
"I don't recall."
#21. To: angle (#19)
Is Hillary out of the running?
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#17)
(Edited)
I don't concede him the nomination (Wallace, Bobby Kennedy) until the final bell
#23. To: aristeides (#22)
More assassination talk?
#24. To: christine (#23)
(Wallace, Bobby Kennedy)
#25. To: aristeides (#24)
#26. To: christine (#25)
#27. To: christine (#25)
answer my questions.
#28. To: aristeides (#22)
More assassination talk?
#29. To: aristeides (#20)
the evidence is available to anyone who wants to do a search on this site.
#30. To: aristeides (#21)
Has Ron Paul decided on his VP choice yet?
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#28)
Assassination is as American as apple pie
#32. To: aristeides (#22)
Let's grant your wish, and suppose assassination prevents Obama from getting the presidential nomination.
#33. To: aristeides (#26)
#34. To: angle (#31)
#35. To: aristeides (#26)
#36. To: christine (#33)
(Wallace, Bobby Kennedy)
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
The nation would be better off if he and his fellow socialists no longer graced this planet.
#38. To: christine (#33)
the one you cited as an insinuation or threat
#39. To: aristeides (#36)
(Edited)
You didn't answer my question. If (Wallace, Bobby Kennedy) is not assassination talk, what is it, and how is it relevant to the discussion in this thread?
#40. To: aristeides (#37)
On this thread, which was precisely about the assassination of Obama.
#41. To: aristeides (#36)
#42. To: Jethro Tull, aristeides and all Eunuchs (#40)
I urge you to report this threat and *please* be the complaining witness. Have you the balls?
#43. To: christine (#41)
"assassination talk" is permitted on this free speech site.
#44. To: aristeides (#43)
Well, free speech should allow the rest of us to complain about assassination talk, I should think.
#45. To: aristeides (#43)
Well, free speech should allow the rest of us to complain about
assassination talk, I should think.
#46. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
(Edited)
In theory conservatives adore the Constitution and seek to protect it with appeals to "original intent." In practice conservatives hate the Constitution as the protector of homosexuals and abortionists. Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition. The neoconservative magazine, Commentary, has called for the New York Times to be prosecuted for informing Americans that President Bush was illegally spying on them without warrants
#47. To: christine (#14)
do you think Hillary is definitely out? or that it's still out of the realm of possibility that they will share the ticket? i'm not so sure that she's not the selection of the PTB.
#48. To: FOH (#15)
(Edited)
--
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#49. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#46)
#50. To: christine, aristeides, Jethro Tull (#23)
what is this, ari? JT or anyone else here is not permitted to mention anything that happened in history or speculate that a similar event could occur without your insinuations that it's somehow a threat? this is an attempt by you to harm this forum and its posters, imo. am i wrong in assuming that this is your intent?
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull (#50)
#52. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#46)
Lew Rockwell had it right. What the GOP advocates isn't conservatism at all, it's "Red State Fascism."
Don't let turtle know I have him on bozo or I'll put you on bozo too!
#53. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
One has to admire Hal Turner on this point. he has his enemies foaming at the mouth, and he can actually take credit for turning the senate around on a "death to America" immigration vote by publishing senators' home addresses and phone numbers!
SOTT.net
January 15, 2008
.
.
.