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: 1732
Comments: 154
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ghostdogtxn, christine, Jethro Tull, FOH, Critter, RickyJ. Original Intent (#0)
Please note that this cluster of traitorous Constitution-gutters and tyrant- makers is exclusive to the GOP. Some would have us believe that there is no significant difference between having a President Obama and a President McCain. Facts (which, as PRC states, conservative emotion now blots out) prove otherwise. Are 4umers who find acceptable the continuation of these brownshirts in power all that different from the brownshirts themselves?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
"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)‡
Dream on while the magicians work their sleight of hand.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Specifically which 4um ers are these?
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Pelosi: More must be done to stop Iran http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668665810&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FShowFull She's as much of a brownshirt as the rest.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
"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)‡
I see....early in my political odyssey I considered
myself a 'conservative' in the mold of Buahanan, Sobran, Sam Francis, Charlie
Reese and others who don't come immediately to mind. Movements and Parties,
especially when they espouse an American First position, become infiltrated
and or vilified. Conservatives have their alter ego neoconservatives, Rs have
their Country Club corporatists, and the Ds their leftists, PC-laden
EnviroNazies. Nobody in this article resembles an American Firster, the
1st criterion of what I consider a conservative. Further, nobody on this forum
would confuse the names in this article with conservatives.
I just finished reading Philippe Sands's Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values . It is an excellent account of the brownshirted lawyers in Bush's Justice Department, Defense Department, and White House.
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.
Nothing in common between neoconservative brownshirts and the people on this forum? Let's wait and see how many come out in support of McCain before Election Day. (I expect quite a few to do so.)
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.
Let me bring you back to your last political prognostication; Ron Paul would choose Mike Gravel as his VP. ari...you're a lightweight.
that may be, but i'm sure as heck not one of them. i'll abstain completely or write in Ron Paul.
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. Independent, CP/affiliate or NOTA ?
FOH on David Letterman
If 4um is going to serve as a Commie-Establishment propaganda delivery system, then I say let it die.
Rodent Mike the OCommie Your shabby tactics would soon prove tiresome to any trial judge, and that's a slam dunk contempt citation. If you threatened (or raised the spectre of) criminal charges to gain advantage in a civil action that is a breach of the ABA canon of ethics! (which are mirrored in many state ethics codes) Now, if a lawyers' professional ethics are an obstacle or simply of no use in heated and protracted political discussions, then will you start by conceding that point? Or, you can adhere to the rules of professional conduct and present cogent facts to support your position, if you have any. It's my position that I could argue your case better than you've been doing, without "passion or prejudice". But, then again I'm from the home of Thomas Jefferson, and you're influences are no doubt the likes of Cecil Rhodes. It's becoming more apparent each passing moment that an Oxford education leaves you somewhat under-gunned against me or JT in an honest to by God stand up political debate.
Your words imply (falsely) he openly advocates or has expressed a desire for such. Imasmuch as that is a federal offense, your tactics are tantamount to accusations which are harmful to the poster and the forum.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
I've been working with AIP (CP affiliate) for months now. I was disappointed in the last central committee meeting though and may switch to Libertarian. I'm waiting until after the June primary to change my registration.
I presented cogent facts in #37. I am threatening no legal action. You're the one who appears to be suggesting such a 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.
EDIT: removed post Sawwy, I thought you intended this post for me!
The language I cited in #37, given the context, can quite reasonably be so interpreted.
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.
You're the one who appears to be suggesting such a thing. I believe I was clear in my hypothetical, "if you were in court". I didn't suggest that you were threatening to file charges here. You're very slippery here, but we both know that no judicial officer would permit that, and it's still no substitute for intelligent debate including followups to JT's frustrating counters to your "cogent facts in #37." In short you seem to want to corner JT on one point: He has alluded to some secret wish that an assassin's bullet would change the course of history. My point is, If so, then so what? As Carol amply demonstrated it's not against the law to openly wish that terrible misfortune befall some unpopular and/or treasonous politico who wants to run our lives and steer the ship of state right up onto the rocks. I for one hope that someday Bill Clinton ODs on Viagra and he has to pole vault to the nearest ER to seek emergency medical assistance and it's printed in the New York Daily News, while Hillary is in China or Bangladesh!"
Something can be permitted by the law, but nevertheless be morally reprehensible and worthy of severe condemnation. Surely free speech allows that?
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.
September 29, 2007 Fed Up With Cowardice and Duplicity www.watchblog.com /democrats/archives/005534.html I am fed up and more than ticked off by most of the Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Remember the expansion of the Bush’s illegal wiretapping? Remember the temporary expansion of the FISA extension than Representative Harman was passed based on hyped security threats? WHY are the Democrats passing these attacks on civil liberties and Constitutional protections? This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of "fear." If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are "afraid," then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are "necessary" for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry. While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the "hyped" threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools. How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and "hype" before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?" Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government's military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of "insurgency" and other means of controlling an "unruly" population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of "helping" certain factions to power, arming "insurgents" to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding "dissidents" inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training "insurgents" (or those formerly labeled "insurgents") in Iraq. The list could go on and on, but I'll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about MoveOn.org's add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to "condemn" free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism. I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years. {snip} firedoglake.com/2007/08/1...ity-in-the-fisa-stampede/ The Democrats also knew the Administration's history in willfully violating the warrant requirements of FISA, and they knew the Administration has yet to explain what it is doing and how it can be legally justified. They knew the Administration had engaged in activities that were so blatantly unlawful that the previous Attorney General, the acting Attorney General and the Director of the FBI were prepared to resign if the activities continued. Yet knowing all this, they passed a bill written entirely by the Administration and never vetted through hearings that gutted FISA, a 28 year old statute that had been carefully crafted and updated after extensive public hearings. They recklessly gutted a statute designed to protect our rights against government abuses that had occurred during the Nixon and prior administrations, abuses that, given the Bush/Cheney regime's history and statements, the Democrats knew were probably at risk here. Second, the article confirms the suspicions that the Administration knowingly misled Congress, claiming a limited FISA amendment was necessary to correct the foreign-to-foreign intelligence gap when in fact they knew that the bill language they drafted went far beyond that limited fix. The Administration denies it would ever interpret the statute in ways that pushed an extreme view of executive power; are we to believe this from an administration that has never held back on pushing extreme views of executive powers?
Do the Center Party members of the Reichstag who joined in voting Hitler dictatorial powers bear equal responsibility with Nazis for the crimes of the Third Reich?
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 do you think?
What do I think? Of course they don't bear anything close to equal blame.
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.
There is a difference, in asmuch as there's a big difference between having a Marxist and having a Fascist in power. I don't say Marxist or Fascist just to call people names either. McCain's advocacy of endless war could have come from the mouth of Mussolini, and Obama's proposal of a global welfare tax sounds like something out of the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto. Is there a difference between a Marxist and a Fascist? Definitely. Does it mean that I'll be voting for one or the other? Definitely not.
ari, point of information. I retired from the NYPD a full 20 years before Homeland Security was established, so your attempt to connect me to it is, well, weird.
And I bet those retired generals who pushed a pro-war propaganda line on the networks for which they were advisers had nothing any longer to do with the Department of Defense.
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.
Surely free speech allows that? Of course. My point is you keep revisiting the same "AHAH! GOTCHA!" for something he did not say, but only alluded to. If JT wished that Obama is removed from the political process by some misfortune he'd say so in clear and unambiguous language. He's a retired police officer and he spent many years deterring crime and/or investigating violence, and there's simply no reason to repeatedly try to put him on the defensive for the crime of upsetting your Pollyanna sensibilities. Lord knows if you want to wring your soft, pink hands, your buddies on that side of the isle have made enough people go away to prevent exposure of their lies and crimes. How is it that you don't understand why most Americans (including JT, chris and me) would resent anyone changing the course of history that way again? Had I and JT been old enough we almost certainly wouldn't have voted for JFK, but neither of us wanted him murdered by a cabal who preempted the will of the voters with contract killers and scope rifles. And, JT's allusion to violence was wildly successful, because here you are still trying to punish him for the non existent crime of reminding you that as FDR said "In politics, nothing is as it seems." Is it "morally reprehensible" to put you in a continuous loop that has you chanting something like "precious bodily fluids" because he made you unhappy? Perhaps you should leave political discussions to those who won't lose their perspective and resort to an ad nauseum tactic that's grating on others' nerves. If he said "You better hope that a sniper doesn't murder your boy, DAWG" I'd say, "For your and your ilks' sake you'd better hope so, too!" And that would be the end of it.
If I'm unhappy, it's because I think every mention of possible assassination -- especially when it appears to be an approving mention -- makes that dreadful event more likely to occur.
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.
Excellent! If SOA/WHINSC doesn't expose the true evil in our "servants'" hearts then nothing does. With the installation of ubiquitous cameras and REAL ID our servants become our masters, and they'll effect a bloodless (for them) coup against us and the constitution. And Alan Dershowitz and the AG du jour are always ready to opine on how to make it all nice and legal like. Again let me mention Red Beckman, one of the researchers who visited the 48 state houses to obtain (certified, he had to do it twice) copies of their 1913 house journals, and he proved that the 16th amendment was not ratified. (as he told me "Don't say not {properly ratified}. It wasn't ratified, period!") Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!' Need I say more? Those who have no doubt what the shadow govt types are planning for us will have choices, not unlike those faced by the signers of The Declaration. And Ben Franklin understood all too well when he said that "it's better to fight and die on your feet than to live on your knees." After what this govt has done to innocents in the name of the WOT (actually, Eretz Israel) there is no doubt in my mind that I don't ever want to be reduced to federal custody, at least not while I'm alive. I don't threaten or menace anyone, but, "If they mean to have a war then let it begin here."
I disagree. Hard to want more of them if they are given such absolution when they are the majority.
I have seen some way dumb comments posted on various message boards but this one is surely in the top ten. LOL, I can't conceive of anyone getting the VP nomination if they were dead. Of course, there is something to be said for that. His upkeep wouldn't be all that great and he wouldn't need the protection of the gestapo and all that goes with being a live Veep. ahaha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The language I cited in #37, given the context, can quite reasonably be so interpreted. Not to any reasonable person. Wishing for a person to die falls far short from advocating assassination, as you have accused. I'm finished playing your game. You're not very good at it.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
With the installation of ubiquitous cameras and REAL ID our servants become our masters, and they'll effect a bloodless (for them) coup against us and the constitution. And Alan Dershowitz and the AG du jour are always ready to opine on how to make it all nice and legal like. Again let me mention Red Beckman, one of the researchers who visited the 48 state houses to obtain (certified, he had to do it twice) copies of their 1913 house journals, and he proved that the 16th amendment was not ratified. (as he told me "Don't say not {properly ratified}. It wasn't ratified, period!") Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!' Need I say more? Those who have no doubt what the shadow govt types are planning for us will have choices, not unlike those faced by the signers of The Declaration. And Ben Franklin understood all too well when he said that "it's better to fight and die on your feet than to live on your knees." After what this govt has done to innocents in the name of the WOT (actually, Eretz Israel) there is no doubt in my mind that I don't ever want to be reduced to federal custody, at least not while I'm alive. I don't threaten or menace anyone, but, "If they mean to have a war then let it begin here." It is ever so clear to all, 75% of America knows what some will not admit. Every individual takes a different path, save the few who benefit from the chaos. Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!' Need I say more? You might have to... the few have decided we should not be allowed to fight or speak. While we can, we should.
yes, ari, it does, but, again, your taking that one innocuous post and another from another poster, the other day, and attempting to characterize them as assassination threats is more than a complaint (imo). and, btw, "assassination talk" encompasses a lot of talk like that in the Cogburn article i posted to you above.
or making reference to the assassinations of historical figures...
I understand. I work with skilled tradesmen who are incredibly good at what they do, but, they couldn't tell me who their state reps are to win a bet, and they know even less about national politics. And, because of America's sordid political history many have automatically defaulted to the position that an African American president would be assassinated. It's not wishful thinking for most. It's a conditioned reflex that began (for the older ones like me) with the Warren Commission report, and continued up to the murder of John Lennon and attempted hit of Ronnie Raygun. Unlike Europe where assassinations always involve groups like the Bahder Meinhof Gang, in The US it's always lone nuts who just happen to score nearly 100% with piss poor weapons and no training or detectable outside support. The only thing they have going for them is, their actions seem to benefit the same powerful special interests, again and again. Americans are petrified of whoever is doing it, and the success rate (that defies statistical probabilities) has the great unwashed convinced that presidents cannot be protected from real lone nuts. (which simply isn't true) Americans don't have to wish for it to understand how these assassins of convenience always surface when the "right people" need them. In short, I've heard many Americans say, "Hell, they'll prolly shoot him!" and more often than not it's uttered with a sense of dread. It's the rare psycho who would actually wish for that. Nearly all Americans are irreversibly heartsick about at least one (and with most Americans all) of the victims of the "uniquely American lone gunmen" who have robbed so many of us of our childhoods and national pride. I can promise you that neither JT's or my disdain for any candidate would prompt either of us to wish that on our fellow Lilliputians. One need not care about the intended target to care about our fellows who are living with enough violence induced trauma. He won't tell you that because he cannot switch gears to a defensive posture for little more than a red herring argument. That's not how he fences on the net.
Do you remember the rumors of same with Ron Paul? I do. And I don't remember the constant assault on the poster that brought the concern, rather I remember the concern about those threatened by his candidacy. In both cases, if either were a threat the same group is more aptly implicated, don't you think? Your post was really quite clear on that point. It has been noted time and again that any puppet candidate is useful and expendable, once his purpose is served. The fear, to my way of thinking, each candidate is a Trojan Horse, and we all have reason to bolt the gate. I suggest thought be given to why that is true.
I do. And I don't remember the constant assault on the poster that brought the concern, rather I remember the concern about those threatened by his candidacy. In both cases, if either were a threat the same group is more aptly implicated, don't you think? Your post was really quite clear on that point. It has been noted time and again that any puppet candidate is useful and expendable, once his purpose is served. The fear, to my way of thinking, each candidate is a Trojan Horse, and we all have reason to bolt the gate. I suggest thought be given to why that is true. Great Post Spicy goil! ;) My Senior US Senator Joe Biden's pension is now worth something like 4.8 mil, and that doesn't include what he could steal or otherwise accrue in 29 years on the job. I'd say that the reason that politics attracts mercenaries is, it's better than being a movie star. Sex, drugs, money, power! The one thing that Ted Kennedy's inheritance couldn't buy is power, the ultimate aphrodisiac! And, the sons of Martha's Vineyard are bored with money, cars, sailboats and drugs before they reach college. What else is there to help them achieve..ahem...satisfactory states of arousal but power?
Byline: David Gardner BRITISH Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing caused uproar last night bypredicting the assassination of Barack Obama if he becomes the first black U.S.president. The 88-year-old novelist's remarks came as the Democratic candidate toasted themost successful day in his White House campaign. Mr Obama, the 46-year-old son of a black Kenyan man and a white American,dismissed Mrs Lessing's comments. Miss Lessing said: 'He would probably not last long, a black man in theposition of president. They would kill him.' She said it would be better if Mrs Clinton, 60, becameAmerica's first woman president with Obama as her running mate. 'Hillary is avery sharp lady. It might be calmer if she wins,' she told a Swedish newspaper. But one Democratic analyst said: 'Suggesting Obama is in danger if he wins theelection in November is not only divisive, it is insulting to the Americanpeople.' Princeton University political science professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell raised assassination fears last month, saying: 'Formany black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It ison people's minds. 'You can't make a prediction like this - like he has a 50 per cent chance ofgetting shot. But the greater his visibility and the greater his access to people, there is adanger.' Last month, TV host Harry Smith caused an outcry, asking Ted Kennedy,brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy: 'Sometimes agents of changeend up being targets. Doesn't it make you at all fearful?' Black presidentialcandidate Jesse Jackson received death threats during his campaigns in theEighties and former Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out a White House runafter his wife feared he would be killed. Illinois senator Mr Obama chalked up a clean sweep in voting on Saturday to winfresh momentum in his deadlocked race with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. He easily won the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washingtonstate, as well as a victory in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The gains cut into the former first lady's slim lead, leaving Mr Obama ahead ina Newsweek poll by 42 per cent to 41 per cent. Mr Obama was expected to do well again in 'Incredibly offensive' tomorrow's primaries in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland, which all have ahigh black population. Mr Obama is battling behind the scenes to persuade the 'super delegates', theelected Democrat officials who can make up their own minds who to back, toswitch allegiance to him, particularly those representing states where he wasclearly the popular choice. Mrs Clinton has kept a comparatively low profile,focusing her energies on the next big states to vote on March 4 in Ohio andTexas, where she is leading in the polls. But she hit out angrily last night over claims that she was 'pimping out' herdaughter Chelsea, 27, to win votes, insisting she was a mother first and apolitician second. Responding to a comment by American TV reporter David Shuster, she said: 'Ifound the remarks incredibly offensive.' Shuster was suspended by cable channelMSNBC on Friday despite apologising on air. Republican front-runner John McCain suffered a setback at the weekend when hisonly remaining challenger, former Arkansas governor and preacher Mike Huckabee,53, beat him in Louisiana and Kansas. But with almost two-thirds of the Republicans delegates wrapped up, it wouldtake a calamity for the 71-year-old Arizona senator to lose the nomination..
Exactly. And who allows them term after term of such gluttony? Career politicians; NOT what the founders intended. A man leaves to serve his community, then returns to his own business.. subject to the laws he makes. Far far different that the professional streetwalkers that are very very long in the tooth. I'd say that the reason that politics attracts mercenaries is, it's better than being a movie star. Sex, drugs, money, power! LOL !!! I've heard it said that DC was Hollywood for ugly people. Babylon alone was not enough, it needed the law behind it. And so it goes, flows and grows. Utter rot. Which leads to? Great Post Spicy goil! ;) Thank you sir. :)
Not in a thread about the assassination of Obama that the very poster has posted, and when his answers are in reply to questions about whether he posted it because that was what he wanted to happen.
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.
Since you objected to my calling the comments the other day "assassination threats," I have been careful to avoid the term. Even though that is what I thought -- and still think -- those comments were. You will notice I have not used the term in this thread, until now, in answering you. Other people have used it here. Yourself included. (As for the term "wish," you used it yourself in defending those comments to me the other day.)
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.
Oxford, for a guy who cringes at the thought, you cant stop talking about the event. A clumsy wannabe provocateur at best.
Insult me all you want. I'll be satisfied, as long as you stop the assassination insinuations.
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.
yep, i admit it. i have and do wish for the demise of truly evil people. you've probably seen me post that i wish something would happen to mcCain before november. do you have a problem with that? does that make me an uncivilized human being in your view? what if i said that the nation would be better off if cheney and his fellow fascists no longer graced this planet? do you find that repugnant too?
You gotta wonder about that.
In a thread about assassination, I would.
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.
How do you propose to rid DC of parasites who worship endless war, intentionally open our borders to criminals and anti-Americans, lay layers of taxes on our backs that cause us to move away from family and friends, give themselves health care while charging us unaffordable fees, grant themselves immunity to the laws they create and develop a voting scheme that ensures a re-selected for incumbents at a rate of 95%? Hmmmm?????
This entire event by ari is an effort to get banned so he can return to the dust bowl a martyr. Since free speech is encouraged here, he's taking the wrong track.
He is indeed. He should be banned.
aristeides posted on 2008-05-19 19:19:55 ET Reply Trace
Private Reply His latest comment at PC And for anyone
interested, I lived within the 5 boroughs of NYC when I was on the NYPD.
I'd pray for McCain to die before the convention, but I'm an atheist.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Dak, wishing for it make you an assassin. You're in good company, BTW :P
aristeides posted on 2008-05-19 19:19:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply His latest comment at PC Oh, the free speech collective? That bastion of tolerance and Constitutional gird?
Seems to me that this possibly bears a faint resemblance of trying to get someone to make a specific threat, bringing upon themselves a visit from Men With No Sense Of Humor. But I could maybe, possibly be wrong. I dont want to stir the pot when the pot is sufficiently stirred as it is.
That's how I see it too.
Then I have awesome mind control powers. Now...how to use them?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
I agree with your take, and that's fine. In the world we're about to enter, visits by govt. folk should be expected and something we should train for. Should it happen to me, I'll record every word and post it right here for all to hear. If they refuse to let me record the interview, I'll end it promptly after we exchange greetings. As Americans, the govt. should fear us, not the other way around.
It's about getting the brain to actually pulsate. Turtle can do it, and I've seen it once before on a cheesy sci-fi flick.
We could replace the entire US House of Reps every two years if we so chose, yet it doesn't happen. Taxpaying citizens, of course, are at a numeric disadvantage to their public charge counterparts. Between the no-bid contract greedheads at the GOP and the lifetime tenure leeches that make up the other party, people that just want to be left the hell alone don't have much of a voice. The meek may someday inherit the earth, but it won't be in my lifetime.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Are folks who support statist whores all that different from the statist whores? Just curious.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Here's the part I don't get. The R party was infiltrated by a bunch of Marxist creeps who, with the backing of Marxist Media hijacked the very definition of Conservative; so that renders the original theory inoperative and the hijackers the fucking heroes?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
What I don't get is why otherwise seemingly sane people can all of a sudden decide that some establishment whore is the saviour of the republic. Some of the same people who used to know, or seemed to, that no establishment whore was worth voting for.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. James, elitists liberals have taken issue with me when all I've done is wish socialist, worldwide, failed to wake up in the AM. I had always thought we were on the same page with that one. Obviously frauds walked among us.
I keep hoping Hillary will make up a lie about smuggling poisonous tropical fish with the Guamanian Garment Workers Union.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
I am unaware of any GOP supporters on this site. Do you have any names, or are you just playing the Democratic version of the old, "if you don't vote for George Bush you're a liberal?" That stupid remark never worked when the republicrats on TOS1 and TOS2 tried it and it sure the hell isn't going to work when you or the other democans on this site try it. My vote is mine and I will use it as I choose. I do not need your permission nor do I care what your opinion of my third party vote is. Have a wonderful day.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
James I believe these people have reached the limits of what they will discern. After that they don't want to hear anymore. They don't want to see anymore. They don't want to do the dirty work necessary to reclaim our freedoms. They have had the insights and the discoveries and have come to the conclussion that they or nobody can do a thing about it within the system. They are weak. They are more dispicable than the plain ignorant who really cannot see what havoc they are supporting.
I need to stop fighting.......
Accepting your straw man, let me raise you one so that we have two. The scenario is this. You have preteen kids and it's very likely that their future environment is going to be either communism or fascism. These are the only choices, nothing else is possible because nothing else would be considered by 98% of your fellow citizens but you do have the ability to peacefully select one of the two and help tip the balance to favor one or the other. Knowing that your kids future depends on it, are you going to do nothing and express superior indifference because you believe that it doesn't matter which camp wins because, you say, one is the mirror image of the other?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
This would be the moment when men should fight the system for themselves, their freedom and their children. I'd be ready to kill. Would you?
So you're going to drop a third straw man into the soup? Like I said, 98% of your countrymen can't see any other possibility. It's either communism or fascism as far as they can comprehend. If you get yourself violent you'll just end up in a straight jacket and your kiddies are going to be worse off for that because they'll be raised in an institution. Dr. Lenin gave a lot of thought and worked hard at developing the science of revolutions. He was pretty good at it. Lenin would never advocate that people go postal on their own. They stand no chance to win anything and all they get is hatred, ridicule and kicks in the groin from their fellow consumers.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I'm perplexed as to why you Obama supporters try to talk to us. Do we seem so easy to convince? Or is it the challenge we present?
'us'? Who is 'us'? Who is 'we'? I am only speaking for myself. Are you speaking for some group? As for why do we talk about things on this forum... well... isn't this a forum where discussions and debates are supposed to take place? What do you suggest should happen here?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Posters have posted of their hopes that Hillary will miraculously come back to beat Obama. Some posters have even posted outright that they prefer McCain to Obama. Both preferences indicate a willingness to continue Bush-Clintonism for 4-8 more years rather than take a chance on a President Obama.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Yes, the ones who'll vote for Obama when hell freezes over. I don't mind you talking to us. I just wonder if there's a point. You might be bored?
I am tempted to say that your intervention is rather boring but I will not say that. It is interesting to observe that someone who posts on a site dedicated to discussions and debates finds that discussions and debates are uncalled for and boring.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I don't deny the boring part!
ah..one of my very favorite oldies.
good way to put it
That stupid remark never worked when the republicrats on TOS1 and TOS2 tried it and it sure the hell isn't going to work when you or the other democans on this site try it. it's absolutely galling. we are not the ones who have changed. they have...and we're for mcCain and brownshirts.
Exactly.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Call on the Universe to act on your behalf in vanquishing the perps. The perps can be chosen individually or collectively. Allow the Universe to respond without directives from you. Spoken word is even more effective than thinking alone. Two people using their powers together is very effective. Choose your words carefully and say at the end something like "with the highest good and in a perfect way." Try it.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
I dissolve those words for you. Words and thoughts are powerful. Choose them with care.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
Therein lies the nut. The players are showing their hands.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
And virtually nobody reacted. To the truth. From Bob Barr, not me. I guess the truth hurts. And what, pray tell, is wrong with posting on another forum?
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.
Yes, that seems pretty clear.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yes. The people who want to see America make its last trip around the bowl are pretty easy to spot. Instead of acknowledging there isn't anything to vote for, at least not on the D and R ticket, they fall all over themselves to front for one of the most liberal communists in Washington. One who wants to tell them how much or how little they can eat, how much gas they can use and what to set their thermostats on. How freakin' pitiful is that?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Those are wise comments. I think you are correct. At least ignorant people have an excuse and if they are not WILLFULLY IGNORANT they can be cured of that. But stupid is forever and there is no cure.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Nothing. In your case please do it early and often.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Some of us are still pro America and pro liberty and we get the nazi label attached to us by people who support a communist. I asked one a while ago what color the sun was on his home planet.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I agree that the system today is unworkable and not redeemable.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
How is pointing out the fascistic side of McCain and the Marxist side of Obama a strawman? And you haven't told us why, when given a choice between a Marxist and a Fascist, we have a duty to vote for the Marxist.
That's strawmanning in action. Obama is not a Marxist and McCain is not a fascist. Unless you have some evidence that Obama is into class warfare, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the banning of religion, the expropriation of all means of production and, if he is to take a Leninist enhancement, the imposition of revolutionary terror. Now, I'm giving it to you to demonstrate why McCain is not a fascist and thus burn both of your poorly-built straw men. By the way, since you claim that you dislike both Marxism and fascism, can you tell me why you do? I am curious and I hope that you don't use these words just because they carry some bad connotations without having some clear ideas of what they are about.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Taking away Peter's money to pay Paul is the core of Marxist social and economic policy. Obama takes this to a new level. Not only does he want higher taxes so that Americans with money can pay for American welfare recipients, but he supports a Global Tax so that we can have the pleasure of paying for third world dregs too. Obama's internationalism - the very idea of a global tax and global authority in place of national sovereignty is also Marxist to the bone. And when it comes to Class Warfare, perhaps you've noticed that among modern Marxists, race has taken the place of class, with blacks and other minorities taking the place of "the proletariat" and whites taking the place of the "bourgeoisie". Every New Left and neo-Marxist supports Afrocentrism and "sticking it to whitey," as do the people that Obama surrounds himself with. As for McCain, what other than fascism can describe a worldview that relishes permanent wars and occupations in the name of "national greatness" and "national honor?" McCain seems to want war for its own sake. How are his views on US empire any different than Mussolini's stupid propaganda about reconquering the whole Mediterranean and resurrecting the Roman Empire? McCain also supports expanding the powers of the police state ("Patriot Act") and continuing the crony partnership between megacorporations and the government, his domestic agenda rounds off his fascist credentials.
Wrong! It is not. The brief and vulgarized description of the Marxist economic policy is: solving all problems by 'expropriating the expropriators' and transferring ownership of all means of production to the society at large with the manager being the socialist state during the socialist phase (communism to follow). Socialism of the Marxist kind is not about taking for Peter to pay Paul because there's nothing that Peter still has that Paul would want. Both Peter and Paul now work for a state-owned and controlled entity. And, by the way, there are no welfare queens. Work is mandatory, avoiding work is criminal and those at the top are not wealthy in the way of Bill Gates. What they hold is not money or assets but power. The only way to hold power is to constantly and frequently demonstrate loyalty to the state or all can collapse in an instant because when they lose power they are left with nothing. The 'taking from Peter to pay Paul' thing is not Marxism. It's 'welfare state capitalism'. If you want to call Obama a welfare state capitalist, you'd probably be close to the mark. Marxist, he is not.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
A workers paradise!
I'm not talking about Soviet-style Communism or Maoism. There are different versions of Marxist ideology out there, and I'm dealing with the one that is relevant today - neo-Marxism and the New Left. As I said in my post, race has taken the place of class for the New Left, so instead of class warfare, you get the Afrocentric race warfare of Obama's pals. And the New Left has pretty much made peace with private property, as long as they get to tax and regulate while the welfare queens get a big slice of the pie and minorities enjoy special priveleges.
Nothing at all. And I strongly encourage you to spend ALL your waking moments doing just that.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Funny. When I encourage Jethro Tull just to refrain from one particularly objectionable kind of posting, he accuses me of censorship.
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 agree with you. As it is currently configured with crooks holding the coding for the voting machines with no verifiable paper trail and only those "acceptable" to the bankers running,* it is not redeemable. *If I need to clarify I can say that I know Ron Paul is his own man and everyone can see how he was marginalized even though he raised more money than almost anyone running on the R ticket. The establishment, those who control it, saw to it that Ron would never be heard that much.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yeah, but then he didn't say what you accused him of saying either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That is very much a matter of opinion.
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.
Okay, so you take some New Age mumbo-jumbo, you call it Marxism and then you attach it to Obama because 'Marxist' sounds bad and it rhymes well with 'fascist' which you attach to McCain and then you claim that they are indistinguishable. It's a very daring act of acrobatics but it's quite meaningless, as far as real life is concerned.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
The German Social Democrats of the Wilhelmine and Weimar periods called themselves Marxist. History shows that they were committed believers in liberal democracy, certainly a lot more so than the German fascists who called themselves Nazis, or even than a lot of conservatives who went along with the Nazi regime. And, when German liberal democracy was restored after World War Two, those Social Democrats played a large role in restoring it. There are all sorts of Marxists.
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.
True, the Socialist Internationale claims that Marxism is at its roots. A number of West German prime ministers were Social Democrats and there were French presidents, British prime ministers (the Labour Party) and Italian premiers that were Socialists as well. Somehow, when someone accuses Obama of Marxism, they don't think that he is in any way like Harold Wilson or Willy Brandt.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I don't like to admit this James, but in the sake of honesty and clarity, they is we. Just by paying taxes or buying their product, we torture the children in Iraq. We turn Iraq/Afghanistan into stone age civilizations. We starve the Palestinians. We give no bid contracts to the elites private army. The list goes on and on. Very few are the men/women who live off the grid. So we are left to vote for the Bush cartel, (clinton/mccain), or the war mongering progressive. At the moment I'll do what I have the courage to do. I'll write in Ron Paul.
I will probably vote for Chuck Baldwin assuming the Constitution Party makes it on the ballot in my state. I know from little local elections that they don't even count write ins (they don't show up in the totals and the candidates who have been written in are never shown to have received any votes). So it would be a waste of time, at least in my case, to write anyone in. Maybe it is different where you live--I think they should have to count every vote but unfortunately that is not the way it works. If I knew the vote would count I would write Ron in too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I dissolve those words for you. Words and thoughts are powerful. Choose them with care. I keep forgetting about these awesome powers of mind control I possess. Yes sir, I'll just have to buckle down and try do better from now on by golly,
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
#2. To: Arator, christine, Jethro Tull, FOH, Critter, RickyJ. Original Intent (#1)
#3. To: Arator (#1)
Please note that this cluster of traitorous Constitution-gutters and tyrant- makers is exclusive to the GOP.
#4. To: Arator (#1)
Are 4umers who find acceptable the continuation of these brownshirts in power all that different from the brownshirts themselves?
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
Is Yoo any more culpable than anyone else who served the corrupt, evil, and anti-American Bush Regime?
#6. To: All (#5)
#7. To: angle (#5)
#8. To: Arator, ghostdogtxn, angle,christine, FOH, Critter, RickyJ. Original Intent, Hounddawg, cynicom, Peppa, all (#1)
Are 4umers who find acceptable the continuation of these
brownshirts in power all that different from the brownshirts themselves?
#9. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
#11. To: aristeides (#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.)
#12. To: aristeides (#10)
Let's wait and see how many come out in support of McCain before Election Day.
#13. To: Jethro Tull, Cynicom (#11)
Let 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
#54. To: farmfriend (#52)
The reason I am leaving the party and why I won't vote for McCain.
#55. To: FOH (#53)
--
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#48)
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
FOH on David Letterman
#58. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#51)
If the law allows JT to say what he does, how can my words about what he says be actionable?
#59. To: aristeides, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull, christine (#51)
how can my words about what he says be actionable?
#60. To: FOH (#54)
Independent, CP/affiliate or NOTA ?
Don't let turtle know I have him on bozo or I'll put you on bozo too!
#61. To: HOUNDDAWG (#58)
#62. To: angle (#59)
(Edited)
#63. To: angle (#59)
Your words imply (falsely) he openly advocates or has expressed a desire for such.
#64. To: aristeides (#61)
I presented cogent facts in #37. I am threatening no legal action.
#65. To: HOUNDDAWG (#64)
#66. To: Arator (#1)
Please note that this cluster of traitorous Constitution-gutters and tyrant- makers is exclusive to the GOP. Some would have us believe that there is no significant difference between having a President Obama and a President McCain. Facts (which, as PRC states, conservative emotion now blots out) prove otherwise.
#67. To: Peppa (#66)
#68. To: aristeides (#67)
Do the Center Party members of the Reichstag who joined in voting Hitler dictatorial powers bear equal responsibility with Nazis for the crimes of the Third Reich?
#69. To: Peppa (#68)
#70. To: Arator (#1)
(Edited)
Some would have us believe that there is no significant difference between having a President Obama and a President McCain.
#71. To: aristeides (#69)
#72. To: Jethro Tull (#71)
#73. To: aristeides (#65)
Something can be permitted by the law, but nevertheless be morally reprehensible and worthy of severe condemnation.
#74. To: HOUNDDAWG (#73)
Is it "morally reprehensible" to put you in a continuous loop that has you chanting something like "precious bodily fluids" because he made you unhappy?
#75. To: Peppa (#66)
#76. To: aristeides (#69)
What do I think? Of course they don't bear anything close to equal blame.
#77. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine, FOH, all (#22)
(Edited)
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?
Lord Acton
#78. To: aristeides, christine (#63)
"Your words imply (falsely) he openly advocates or has expressed a desire for such. "
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#75)
If SOA/WHINSC doesn't expose the true evil in our "servants'" hearts then nothing does.
#80. To: aristeides (#43)
Well, free speech should allow the rest of us to complain about assassination talk, I should think.
#81. To: angle (#78)
Not to any reasonable person. Wishing for a person to die falls far short from advocating assassination, as you have accused.
#82. To: aristeides (#74)
If I'm unhappy, it's because I think every mention of possible assassination -- especially when it appears to be an approving mention -- makes that dreadful event more likely to occur.
#83. To: HOUNDDAWG (#82)
In short, I've heard many Americans say, "Hell, they'll prolly shoot him!" and more often than not it's uttered with a sense of dread.
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
Do you remember the rumors of same with Ron Paul?
#85. To: aristeides (#74)
ari......people are talking......
Assassination warning spoils Obama party.
#86. To: HOUNDDAWG (#84)
(Edited)
What else is there to help them achieve..ahem...satisfactory states of arousal but power?
#87. To: angle (#78)
Wishing for a person to die falls far short from advocating assassination, as you have accused.
#88. To: christine (#80)
(Edited)
characterize them as assassination threats
#89. To: aristeides (#87)
Not in a thread about the assassination of Obama that the very poster has posted, and when his answers are in reply to questions about whether he posted it because that was what he wanted to happen.
#90. To: Jethro Tull (#89)
#91. To: aristeides (#88)
#92. To: Jethro Tull (#89)
Oxford, for a guy who cringes at the thought, you cant stop talking about the event.
#93. To: christine (#91)
do you find that repugnant too?
#94. To: aristeides (#90)
#95. To: Peppa (#92)
#96. To: Jethro Tull (#95)
This entire event by ari is an effort to get banned so he can return to the dust bowl a martyr. Since free speech is encouraged here, he's taking the wrong track.
#97. To: Peppa (#96)
I just posted Bob Barr's comments on 4um. Let's see if there's
a reaction.
#98. To: christine, aristeides (#91)
#99. To: Dakmar (#98)
#100. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
I just posted Bob Barr's comments on 4um. Let's see if there's a reaction.
#101. To: Jethro Tull, All (#95)
#102. To: PSUSA (#101)
Seems to me that this possibly bears a faint resemblance of trying to get someone to make a specific threat, bringing upon themselves a visit from Men With No Sense Of Humor.
#103. To: Jethro Tull (#99)
wishing for it make you an assassin
#104. To: PSUSA (#101)
Seems to me that this possibly bears a faint resemblance of trying to get someone to make a specific threat, bringing upon themselves a visit from Men With No Sense Of Humor.
#105. To: Dakmar (#103)
Then I have awesome mind control powers. Now...how to use them?
#106. To: Jethro Tull (#104)
As Americans, the govt. should fear us, not the other way around.
#107. To: Arator (#1)
Are 4umers who find acceptable the continuation of these brownshirts in power all that different from the brownshirts themselves?
Lord Acton
#108. To: James Deffenbach (#107)
(Edited)
#109. To: Dakmar (#108)
Here's the part I don't get. The R party was infiltrated by a bunch of Marxist creeps who, with the backing of Marxist Media hijacked the very definition of Conservative; so that renders the original theory inoperative and the hijackers the fucking heroes?
Lord Acton
#110. To: James Deffenbach (#109)
#111. To: Jethro Tull (#110)
#112. To: Arator (#1)
Are 4umers who find acceptable the continuation of these brownshirts in power all that different from the brownshirts themselves?
#113. To: James Deffenbach (#109)
What I don't get is why otherwise seemingly sane people can all of a sudden decide that some establishment whore is the saviour of the republic. Some of the same people who used to know, or seemed to, that no establishment whore was worth voting for.
#114. To: Dakmar (#111)
#115. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#70)
Is there a difference between a Marxist and a Fascist? Definitely. Does it mean that I'll be voting for one or the other? Definitely not.
#116. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#115)
#117. To: Jethro Tull (#116)
#118. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
#119. To: buckeye (#118)
#120. To: Hayek Fan (#112)
I am unaware of any GOP supporters on this site.
#121. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#119)
Are you speaking for some group?
#122. To: buckeye (#121)
(Edited)
#123. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#122)
#124. To: Jethro Tull (#114)
#125. To: Dakmar (#108)
The R party was infiltrated by a bunch of Marxist creeps who, with the backing of Marxist Media hijacked the very definition of Conservative; so that renders the original theory inoperative and the hijackers the fucking heroes?
#126. To: Hayek Fan, James Deffenbach (#112)
"if you don't vote for George Bush you're a liberal?"
#127. To: Jethro Tull (#89)
A clumsy wannabe provocateur at best.
#128. To: Dakmar (#103)
Now...how to use them?
#129. To: Dakmar (#106)
The meek may someday inherit the earth, but it won't be in my lifetime.
#130. To: James Deffenbach (#109)
or seemed to
#131. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
I just posted Bob Barr's comments on 4um. Let's see if there's a reaction.
#132. To: Jethro Tull (#110)
James, elitists liberals have taken issue with me when all I've done is wish socialist, worldwide, failed to wake up in the AM. I had always thought we were on the same page with that one. Obviously frauds walked among us.
Lord Acton
#133. To: angle (#130)
Therein lies the nut. The players are showing their hands.
Lord Acton
#134. To: Ragin1 (#113)
James I believe these people have reached the limits of what they will discern. After that they don't want to hear anymore. They don't want to see anymore. They don't want to do the dirty work necessary to reclaim our freedoms. They have had the insights and the discoveries and have come to the conclussion that they or nobody can do a thing about it within the system. They are weak. They are more dispicable than the plain ignorant who really cannot see what havoc they are supporting.
Lord Acton
#135. To: aristeides (#131)
And what, pray tell, is wrong with posting on another forum?
#136. To: christine (#126)
it's absolutely galling. we are not the ones who have changed. they have...and we're for mcCain and brownshirts.
Lord Acton
#137. To: James Deffenbach, Ragin1 (#134)
have come to the conclussion that they or nobody can do a thing about it within the system
#138. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#115)
#139. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#138)
(Edited)
#140. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#139)
(Edited)
#141. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#140)
Taking away Peter's money to pay Paul is the core of Marxist social and economic policy.
#142. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#141)
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
#143. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#141)
(Edited)
#144. To: aristeides (#131)
And what, pray tell, is wrong with posting on another forum?
Lord Acton
#145. To: James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull (#144)
And I strongly encourage you to spend ALL your waking moments doing just that.
#146. To: angle (#137)
I agree that the system today is unworkable and not redeemable.
Lord Acton
#147. To: aristeides (#145)
Funny. When I encourage Jethro Tull just to refrain from one particularly objectionable kind of posting, he accuses me of censorship.
Lord Acton
#148. To: James Deffenbach (#147)
#149. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#143)
I'm not talking about Soviet-style Communism or Maoism. There are different versions of Marxist ideology out there, and I'm dealing with the one that is relevant today - neo-Marxism and the New Left. As I said in my post, race has taken the place of class for the New Left, so instead of class warfare, you get the Afrocentric race warfare of Obama's pals.
#150. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#149)
#151. To: aristeides (#150)
#152. To: James Deffenbach (#134)
#153. To: Ragin1 (#152)
Lord Acton
#154. To: angle (#129)
The meek may someday inherit the earth, but it won't be in my lifetime. - Dakmar
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest