Ron Paul Revolution!!!! [Archive] - THE WRITERS FORUM

View Full Version : Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

vanfullofretards

06-01-2007, 05:52 PM

I know there has been alot of talk about Ron Paul in the Republican Debate thread. We all know he kicks some serious ass, so spread the word fools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uem3OIp6kzU&mode=related&search=

Get the name RON PAUL out there and help preserve The Constitution!!!

lord_casek

06-01-2007, 06:05 PM

"search" would've shown you that there is a ron paul thread

Juan Fuentes

06-01-2007, 06:13 PM

of course its a revolution,it hasnt been a candidate like this in 200+ years!!!
this is a chance for things to change,and notice this,God placed him at these troubled times when things with the nwo are serious and we are running out of time,so dont lose yer hopes!

vanfullofretards

06-01-2007, 06:18 PM

"search" would've shown you that there is a ron paul thread

Fuck it. He deserves another.

lord_casek

06-01-2007, 06:21 PM

Fuck it. He deserves another.

you sir, are correct.
here's a rolling stone article

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14952564/giuliani_worse_than_bush/2

angelofdeath

06-01-2007, 08:30 PM

exactly. ive been convinced for a couple months now, that no other politician has been as liberty oriented as this guy. in our history. period.

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 12:12 AM

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 12:17 AM

rolling stone is an extremely liberal-slanted magazine.

yumone

06-02-2007, 12:18 AM

watch out everyone, its the LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!!!!!!

ILOTSMYBRAIN

06-02-2007, 12:47 AM

everyones biased, get the fuck over it.

regardless, ron paul is still the best candidate this year, and most deffinatly within the past 20 years. i dont know about "forever" because well, i'm only in my early 20's.

if you think otherwise, you either can't read, or formulate you're own opinion, or you have an agenda.

ron paul is for the people, and that's what's most important.

lord_casek

06-02-2007, 01:10 AM

i'm beginning to think casek has a crush on ron paul

a couple weeks ago he was like "look at his eyes... the way he gazes into the camera and answers questions. now that's a real man..."
and "i loved the way he leaned over and intimidated sean hannity."

reminded me of a woman fantasizing about her "mr. right," talking about his dreamy "eyes" and what a "real man" he is.

no, it's the fact that men around the country have been pussified.
it's encouraging to see what a real man is like. i think of ron paul
as a wise grandfather type person. he reminds me of mine alot.

i expect more out of you than comments such as these, theo. honestly.

p.s.: are you afraid to look into peoples eyes and get a feel for their character? i'm not.

post.

06-02-2007, 01:10 AM

watch the GOP debates this tuesday on CNN, and streaming live on the website. i hope rudy911 took his reading assignment. ron paul needs this. his attention seems to be dwindling since the first surge of interest following the NC debates. i am regrettably forced to listen to fox news radio at work all day, and anytime callers to rush and beck mention the honorable doctor, or even fucking tancredo (ish... but the point remains), they are instantly and rudely hung up on and written off as spammers. its so fucking obvious how powerful this man is, and how fucking scared the neo-cons are with their desperate attempts to smear the most noble and articulate and FAIR candidate we have seen in our lifetimes. i consider myself a minarchist... classical liberal... and sometimes a libertarian, and a woman with strong pro-choice tendencies, and even though paul is pro-life, i cannot imagine that he would ever press abortion as a federal concern as long as he is in office. let the states decide! give power back to local government... power back to the people! abolish the IRS, CIA, NAFTA, CAFTA, get OUT OF IRAQ and OUT OF THE U.N!

lord_casek

06-02-2007, 01:16 AM

vanfullofretards

06-02-2007, 01:19 AM

As of 2001, he was one of few doctors in the House (eight, including dentists) and part of an even smaller group that continued to practice while in office. It is not unusual for him to be in his home district and hear a younger person call out, "You delivered me!

That would be kinda weird if Ron Paul delivered you...

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 03:10 AM

no, it's the fact that men around the country have been pussified.
it's encouraging to see what a real man is like. i think of ron paul
as a wise grandfather type person. he reminds me of mine alot.

i expect more out of you than comments such as these, theo. honestly.

p.s.: are you afraid to look into peoples eyes and get a feel for their character? i'm not.

i'm just messin with you man. lol

i said that because you're always calling people homosexuals.

i'm not afraid to look in someone's eyes and get an idea of who they are though. it is what it is.

lord_casek

06-02-2007, 03:12 AM

oh shit! don't spend the night in your house! i already called sneakandcreep to run a one man assault!

so solly.

angelofdeath

06-02-2007, 07:04 PM

" if you think otherwise, you either can't read, or formulate you're own opinion, or you have an agenda."

no, i never said he was the 'best candidate' i said he was the most 'pro liberty' candidate ever. the best freedom candidate ever. hands down. has never voted for any kind of govt largesse.

the reason why i say this is because he is the most consistent. i am unaware of one vote that is against his rhetoric or the constitution. even thomas jefferson was supporting unconstitutional stuff when he was president, and the biggest question was "is buying the louisiana territory constitutional for the president to do?"

a perfect example of how strict hron paul's beliefs are.. he voted against medals for rosa parks and john paul II. he offered to kick in money of his own, but not public money and that the constitution has no authorization to do so. a couple 20th century politicians that come close to ron paul are robert taft and howard buffett. taft a republican, and buffett a democrat. (conservative democrat i guess you'd say) taft was wishy washy on some issues, but overall he was a model of traditional limited government liberalism. (note that liberalism turned statist in the progressive era, and the old liberals went on to be 'conservatives' i use the term liberal meaning 'classical liberal' ) ron paul is even more consistent than taft.

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 07:24 PM

that said, i believe ron paul is the best candidate out of democrats and republicans. democrats don't have a real plan and just want a swift withdrawal from iraq, and let iraq just boil over into anarchy. i think ron paul will try to withdraw troops from iraq, but will do it in such a way that iraq will be stable.

guiliani is just a plain idiot in denial. because he doesn't fault u.s. foreign policy, and thinks muslims did 9/11 because "they hate our freedom," then he'll just go and repeat more of the past mistakes.

lord_casek

06-02-2007, 07:54 PM

don't forget ghouliani put 45% of wtc victims remains in the nyc dump.
fucking swine.

im not witty

06-02-2007, 08:33 PM

i saw this guy on bill mahr. i must admit i have been paying zero attention to who is vying for the republican ticket, so ron paul was not on my radar. but when i saw this dude talk my fucking jaw dropped. i couldnt believe a politician was saying shit like that. ive never in my life. right now im on board.

vanfullofretards

06-02-2007, 10:22 PM

don't forget ghouliani put 45% of wtc victims remains in the nyc dump.
fucking swine.

Thats kind of cheap shot because for 1, he didnt really have control over that and 2, they were in small peices.

MainEvent

06-02-2007, 10:42 PM

dudes the man. if i could vote, i'd probably vote for him so far. i wanna hear the democratic debate though, anyone know when that shit is?

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 10:50 PM

Thats kind of cheap shot because for 1, he didnt really have control over that and 2, they were in small peices.

exactly. they tried their best to retrieve all of the bodyparts (including rings and watches) that they could. it was a very painstaking process, and they couldn't get everything.

lord_casek

06-02-2007, 10:59 PM

exactly. they tried their best to retrieve all of the bodyparts (including rings and watches) that they could. it was a very painstaking process, and they couldn't get everything.

you need to research some more.

ghouliani is a worthless piece of shit.

post.

06-02-2007, 11:24 PM

did you see rudy911's myspace page?!
www.myspace.com/172332079

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 11:32 PM

did you see rudy911's myspace page?!
www.myspace.com/172332079

lol pretty sure that ain't his page

Theo.Huxtable

06-02-2007, 11:35 PM

you need to research some more.

ghouliani is a worthless piece of shit.

is it possible for you to not like a politician without accusing them of vast conspiracies?

example: i hate bush, but i do not blame him for 9/11, global warming, asteroids or volcanoes

it seems you either like someone completely, or hate them and blame them for the worst conspiracies ever. try restricting your dislike a little. try it sometime. it may do you good.

another question: do you think every single body part and fragment should've been found?

MainEvent

06-02-2007, 11:55 PM

rudy gulliani is a clown who just tries to capitalize on 9/11 as much as possible and ignore everything else as much as possible. theres no way ron paul will get the nomination of the republican party though, its either gonna be mccain or romney.

ILOTSMYBRAIN

06-03-2007, 12:08 AM

lord_casek

06-03-2007, 02:59 AM

no theo. i do know that rudy is garbage.

and i do hate bush, but i don't blame him for everything.

post.

06-03-2007, 05:36 PM

Please sign this Declaration of Support and show the world that our support for Ron Paul is real.

Here is the text of the declaration:

I support Ron Paul because he opposes and would substantively change the following:

• The WTO (World Trade Organization), NAFTA and CAFTA. These organizations threaten our National Sovereignty by placing domestic policy decisions in the hands of foreign agents.

• The "Federal" Reserve. Despite it's name, the Federal Reserve is not a Federal agency (think FedEx). It is a privately owned corporation that manipulates the value of the U.S. dollar (through interest rates and inflation) to the advantage of the wealthy and the detriment of the middle class and poor.

• The PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional law, passed by a panicked, spineless Congress at a time of fear and uncertainty. Congressional members were so scared, in fact, that they literally neglected to read the law they passed. This law allows for domestic spying on ordinary Americans. It allows for warrant less searches. This law is not limited to terrorism cases. This law gives the government the authority to detain anyone, for whatever length of time, without ever bringing charges. This law is illegal.

• The REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act is a law passed by Congress that mandates the creation of a national ID card. These cards are plastic human barcodes that every American citizen will be forced to carry, starting in May of 2008, so that the government can keep an absolute tab on every one. Right now it is the law.

Depending on your State of Residence, some of the features these cards will include are: fingerprint, iris scan, genetic information (DNA), social security number, physical description of the card holder, a magnetic strip which would allow access to databases containing your credit history and private medical information, and an RFID chip, which would allow the government to track your movements.

• The Military-Industrial Complex. The Military-Industrial Complex is a term that was made famous by WWII war hero and former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. He used it in his farewell address to warn Americans of the dangers of the MIC. The term Military-Industrial Complex refers to the relationship between the Military, Government and Private Industry (a.k.a. weapons manufacturers). It works like this...

The more wars there are the more toys the Military needs. The more toys the military needs, the more money Private Industry makes. The more toys Private Industry makes for the Military, the more influence the Government gains on the world stage. The more influence the Government gains on the world stage, the more toys the Military will need to sustain it. The more toys the Military needs to sustain the Government's gained influence on the world stage, the more money Private Industry makes... and so on.

Only constant war can sustain this vicious circle of war profiteering, dominance of others and death and destruction. In essence, constant war benefits these three parties at the expense of world peace and stability.

• The War on Drugs. "War on Drugs" is a propagandistic term for a policy that sustains the very drug market it is supposedly meant to fight. By criminalizing drugs (think Alcohol), the government enables the existence of black markets (think bootlegging), which in turn allows for the emergence of individuals and criminal syndicates (think Al Capone) who are more than willing to kill, rape and bribe themselves into riches, as they satisfy that market's demands.

By keeping drugs illegal, the government enables a market whereby those who trade in it (gangs and individuals) make enormous profits that allow them to further their criminal enterprises. It puts money into the pockets of individuals who use it to bribe Police, Court Officials and Politicians. It turns desperate poor people into deviant entrepreneurs. It makes criminals out of individuals who have the illness of addiction.

• The War on Terror. The "War on Terror" is another propagandistic term and contributes greatly to the Military-Industrial Complex. It is meant to promote fear and submission to authority. By neglecting the fact that terrorism is a tactic of war and not an enemy, the government is able to conceal the progress, or lack thereof, of it's war against said enemy; simply because one cannot measure a tactic.

• The Department of Homeland Security. The DHS is a massive, wasteful, bureaucratic, Orwellian institution that threatens our values, our liberties and our Rights under the Constitution. This is the same institution that spent the summer of 2004 scaring all Americans by issuing "orange alerts" whenever the political situation for the White House got dangerous.

• President George W. Bush. The President has waged an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq. The President has waived the Writ of Habeas Corpus; the right of an individual to have a Court review whether or not their detention is legal. The President has exceeded his Constitutional authority and violated several federal laws by; engaging in domestic spying, allowing the NSA to intercept and listen to millions of innocent phone calls, allowing the NSA to read your private e-mails and Instant Messages, allowing the NSA to monitor your internet activity and by allowing the Post Office to open your mail. And these are only the confirmed programs.

post.

06-03-2007, 05:40 PM

sorry, here is the link...

http://ronpaulregistry.com

Stereotype V.0002

06-03-2007, 07:40 PM

• The Military-Industrial Complex. The Military-Industrial Complex is a term that was made famous by WWII war hero and former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. He used it in his farewell address to warn Americans of the dangers of the MIC. The term Military-Industrial Complex refers to the relationship between the Military, Government and Private Industry (a.k.a. weapons manufacturers).

Funny how this seems to be the only part of Eisenhower’s speech that gets quoted, and these portions are constantly left out-

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. "
OMG INTERVENTIONIST WORLD POLICEZ!!!

"We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. "
A global, hostile ideology that we will be at war with indefinitely? Does that sound familiar to another speech by a more recent president?

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. "
Wait, is he advocating a large military that is ready to instantly deal with any situation, and to use a military buildup as a deterrent? The baby killers are necessary to keep the peace? How can war cause peace?! wtfomg?!!

And just to clarify, ron paul is like a closet 911 conspiracy theorist? He says he “doesn’t trust” the govt’s findings in it and speaks at the 911 scholar shindigs with Alex Jones?

lord_casek

06-03-2007, 07:46 PM

no. he's not a closet conspiracy theorist. i don't know how many times i have to say this, but ron paul only supports a re-opening of the investigations.
bush hired his own people to do an independent investigation. how much sense does that make?
there are unanswered questions that really need to be answered in full.
insider trading, connections to the bin laden family, why the fbi was taken off the bin laden case, why the bin ladens were able to fly out of this country on a day when no flights for the people of this country were allowed (in or out), etc.
yes, he has connections with jones. he does iunterviews with many people, constitutionalist and otherwise. big deal. he's the only hope our country has, and the only candidate that respects out constitution.

Juan Fuentes

06-03-2007, 08:19 PM

yeah man,ron paul or goodbye america,and i mean goodbye so long peace out adios ciao seeya america.

Stereotype V.0002

06-04-2007, 03:45 PM

So casek, in other words Mr Paul is skeptical of the official explanation (which is a bunch of pissed off cave dwellers flew planes into buildings), thinks this explanation was reached by illegitimate means with “Bush’s” investigation, and wants a new investigation to explore what really happened. So how is he not a 911 conspiracy theorist?
And I said “closet” conspiracy theorist because I don’t think he would be stupid enough to commit political suicide...even if he is dumb enough to associate with a leader of the 911 conspiracy people and allude to a conspiracy without saying it outright. The fact that he has so much support from people like yourself who are true believers of a conspiracy says a lot too. I think if he was adamant that 911 wasn’t a govt conspiracy and it was as it seemed, like the other politicians, he wouldn’t have your (and others) support.

lord_casek

06-04-2007, 04:52 PM

no, what i said is that he has questions because the official investigation was carried out by bushites.
he has questions as to why bush called the fbi off the bin ladens, why agents were told to hush when they tried to come out about our foreign policy, etc.

i have decided that you are unamerican swine.

p.s.: go do your own research. don't depend on me to answer any more questions you have about dr. paul. do your own damned research. he answers all the questions you have.

Theo.Huxtable

06-04-2007, 04:53 PM

Funny how this seems to be the only part of Eisenhower’s speech that gets quoted, and these portions are constantly left out-

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. "
OMG INTERVENTIONIST WORLD POLICEZ!!!

"We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. "
A global, hostile ideology that we will be at war with indefinitely? Does that sound familiar to another speech by a more recent president?

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. "
Wait, is he advocating a large military that is ready to instantly deal with any situation, and to use a military buildup as a deterrent? The baby killers are necessary to keep the peace? How can war cause peace?! wtfomg?!!

And just to clarify, ron paul is like a closet 911 conspiracy theorist? He says he “doesn’t trust” the govt’s findings in it and speaks at the 911 scholar shindigs with Alex Jones?

I don't think people that quote President Eisenhower's farewell address are insinuating that he's advocating the "military-industrial complex" and that he wants to be an "interventionist." At least that's how I'm interpreting what you're writing -- that you think people are claiming that Eisenhower is a proponent of massive military buildup for profit/domination. People are stating that Eisenhower is warning us about the threat and danger of the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower was not a fan of it by a longshot.

Juan Fuentes

06-04-2007, 05:20 PM

ron paul
will take out the irs...who the hell wants to pay that?!
give privacy for the people...no more unjustify searches by pigs
he wants to discriminalize cannabis...i dont smoke it,but alcohol is worst and weed makes u chill out,so the things could change a lot
wants to stop the world police stuff/give less money to the military projects....like he says it,the cia has been behing every coup on latin america,middle east,everywhere killing the revolutionary minds who dont want neo-liberalism imperialistic capitalism to exist.
and so many more!

so really,i dont know how can anyone be against this man

and him wanting another 911 investigation is better for us,the government lies all the time,they paid for the investigation,why not lie to us on that too??? so this new investigation will clear things out of the way,plus i want both sides to stop using our time to post about 911 in here,we could be doing something else.

edit.
about stereotype,it seems u come here when ever u are mad,once in a while,to ruin any posibility of things going better,it seems as u hate people in general,thats why u focus so much on stereotypes.

Juan Fuentes

06-04-2007, 11:36 PM

ABC John Stossel Shows What's Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox4VHWNw_i8)

angelofdeath

06-05-2007, 12:07 AM

im not a conspiracy theorist. but i'd call alex jones a conspiracy theorist. just because i might listen to his radio show now and then, doesnt mean i think bush planted a bomb in the world trade center. casek explained ron pauls views on the 'explanation of 9/11' pretty good in my opinion. there are questions that need be answered. like why was airport security nationalized and why couldnt pilots/private air companies decide to let thier crew or passengers carry firearms? a billion dollars of beauracracy screening passengers couldnt stop a handful of nut jobs with box cutters, but i guarantee you if a pilot would of had a 1911, those mofos would of been grave yard dead.

'conspiracy theorists' (what is that anyway, am i a conspiracy theorist because there is a new world order??) like ron paul because they tend to hold the ideals of liberty near and dear. alex jones, despite that i think he gets a little wacky sometimes, is a die hard constitutionalist. so it is natural that he would support ron paul and do everything in his power to promote him. in my opinion liberty knows no boundaries and anyone is free to join its cause.

go ron go!
repeal the 20th century!

Juan Fuentes

06-05-2007, 02:28 AM

ron paul on the daily show, at 11 pm eastern time.

angelofdeath

06-05-2007, 02:47 AM

counting down

ILOTSMYBRAIN

06-05-2007, 04:35 AM

missed it, im about to watch the repeat @ 1 am

Stereotype V.0002

06-05-2007, 03:33 PM

At least that's how I'm interpreting what you're writing -- that you think people are claiming that Eisenhower is a proponent of massive military buildup for profit/domination.

I’m saying the opposite, the warning of the “military industrial complex” is constantly quoted by people who try to portray Eisenhower as a bulwark against any sort of military build up (making him a socialist or libertarian icon), and that Eisenhower really thought we should greatly reduce our military to a much smaller defensive force adopting an isolationist policy. The rest of his speech does not say that at all, he clearly sees a large military as a “vital” deterrent, and he advocates 'keeping the peace' between nations. But people ignore that and focus on one sentence to try to manipulate the speech to give legitimacy to their cause. Also his comments were made in an era where 13% of the GDP was for military spending, a few years after 38% on military spending...compared to today where 3% of the GDP is used on the military. So its not really applicable in the first place.

I think once Dr Paul’s views on some issues popular with the college kids are more widely known, like on welfare, universal health care, medicaid (which he talked about the the daily show), intervening in Darfur or other shitholes to stop genocide, etc etc, his only support will be from the 911 crowd and libertarians. The Ron Paul discussion is sort of pointless outside of entertainment on my part since he has about the same chance of winning as Kucinich, but you guys should keep on keeping on. Casek or Juan Cohiba, I might be an unamerican swine and all, and you dislike answering my questions, but do you think that I am an undercover secret govt. disinformation agent in part of a conspiracy to discredit you or something along those lines? I don’t know if you’ve said that before, I know others have here, I’m just curious.

Juan Fuentes

06-05-2007, 07:02 PM

Hillary Clinton Flat Out Lies at The June 3rd CNN Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ypfvL5NWE)

gotcha!

lord_casek

06-05-2007, 07:59 PM

no stereotype, i just think you're an asshole in here. otherwise,a swell guy.

lord_casek

06-09-2007, 07:25 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBCs_Tucker_invites_Ron_Paul_to_0607.html

eattingsnowflakes

06-10-2007, 04:37 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2mb7aiM9K9Q

metronome

06-10-2007, 07:52 PM

this sucks, I can't watch youtube clips from work :(

vanfullofretards

06-19-2007, 05:00 AM

Ron Paul on health care.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul345.html

angelofdeath

06-19-2007, 10:45 AM

^^ begin 49 pgae debate on free market vs socialized healthcare....

lord_casek

06-20-2007, 07:33 PM

dr. paul isn't being invited to the iowa tax relief debates
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=44134

Lighting Expressions by Shaw
[email protected]
750 Alice's Road
Waukee, IA 50263
Phone: (515) 987-3808
Fax: (515) 987-3812

Coldwell Banker Mid-America Group
Julie Reeves
(515) 224-8810
[email protected]
www.coldwellbankermag.com

Americans for Fair Taxation
PO Box 27487
Houston, Texas 77227-7487
Phone: 713-963-9023
Toll-Free: 1-800-FAIRTAX (324-7829)
Fax: 713-963-8403
[email protected]

Krishna Engineering Consultant
1454 30th St # 104
West Des Moines, IA 50266
(515) 224-6300

Iowans for Tax Relief
Edward Failor, General Counsel
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
H Phone 563-263-3738
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: [email protected]

David Stanley Chairman
H Phone 563-263-7203

Steve Scheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: [email protected]

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines IA 50319
Phone: 515-281-5164
Fax: 515-281-4209

Firm: Peter E. Voorhees
Address: PO Box 68
Cedar Falls, IA 50613-0068
Phone: (319) 266-2638
Fax: (319) 266-9627

lord_casek

06-20-2007, 07:33 PM

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008
Contact Information
Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site
Steve Scheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: [email protected]

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 02:50 PM

federal reserve abolition bill out
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:02 PM

he was and probably still is a white supremacist,and is against immigration into America.
Anyone running for office who is against immigration,is against America, because people seem to forget that they are all immigrants,unless they are native american(from canada to south america). If a candidate is against immigration, he is pro-greed.

this guy stands no chance

we will continue to make this fact known

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 05:06 PM

he was and probably still is a white supremacist

this guy stands no chance

we will continue to make this fact known

where did you get that from?

i just saw your edit. ron paul is anti illegal immigration. not anti-immigration.

why would you want people to come here illegally to virtually disintegrate the economy?
what a way to start your time in our country...by breaking the law.

i know hispanics are patriotic peoples. i know if they knew that they were being used by their goverment, as well as ours, to cause an economic breakdown and put all of our countries in control of elitists, they wouldn't stand for it.

don't come in here talking that la raza and la ri conquista bullshit. that is about the most racist shit i've ever seen. "for the race everything, for the rest nothing" isn't that the slogan of la raza? i believe so.

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:08 PM

where did you get that from?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

the dude stands no chance.by 2050, Latinos/Indiginous Americans will be the majority in America, and obviously heres people that want to stop it, including this guy.

If you can look at a Mexican, and tell me hes a European, then you are retarded.

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 05:11 PM

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

so he's a white supremacist because some bullshit organization of dipshits supports him being anti-illegal immigration? dude, get real.
there are plenty of dipshits that support all the candidates.
ron paul is a good christian gentleman. you should do some more investigating
before you start calling someone a racist.

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:16 PM

where did you get that from?

i just saw your edit. ron paul is anti illegal immigration. not anti-immigration.

why would you want people to come here illegally to virtually disintegrate the economy?
what a way to start your time in our country...by breaking the law.

.

disintegrate the economy?

first off, the work that illegal mexicans do contribute over 100 bilion dollars a year into the econonmy,yet it only costs around 20 billion to keep them here. aren't they paying their rent?

second, illegal immigrants have been coming over the border since the 1800's,since the mexican-american war, and the spanish-american war. that is when the majority of them did come over the border. BUT NO ONE MADE AN ISSUE OF IT UNTIL 9/11 WHEN WHITE AMERICA BECAME SCARED OF BROWN PEOPLE.

thrid off, they do the majority of the food harvesting and construction work in america, they have been for the past few decades. THEY ARE AMERICA. if it wasnt for the food industry and construction industry, america would be shit, and illegal mexicans are doing all the work.

fourth, on the topic of health care, did you know that white-american white-collar fraud steals almost 200 billion dollars a year out of the medical system. and thats for what? new SUV's and 5th summer homes? yet when someone actually needs real free healthcare,the american public gets into a racist uproar?

you know whos illegal? europeans. europeans came here illegally, and genocided over 200 million indiginous americans,and then european style government and politics and people have nerve to call native americans illegal?

also, less then half of the 15 million or so illegals are actually mexican or latino. the rest are mainly irish,european, russian and asian. yet no one makes noise about them. why is it always focused on mexicans? i know why. BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN SKINNED.

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 05:16 PM

look, it's not about mexicans. it's about the illegality. it's about the people
coming here to find a better life and fucking our country up by draining our
funds city by city, county by county, and state by state.
not contributing to our economy by spending 40% of what they earn here and sending the other 60% back to mexico.

i don't see the mccain kennedy bill as being anything but high treason.
you don't let people who come here illegally get tax breaks. you don't
let convicted murderers, child molesters, etc have a second chance in our country.
and that is in the bill. it gets worse.

here it is. and this is only 20 of the loopholes.

20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill

* Loophole 1 – Legal Status Before Enforcement:

Amnesty benefits do not wait for the “enforcement trigger.” After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never “approved,” the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].

* Loophole 2 – U.S. VISIT Exit Not In Trigger:

The “enforcement trigger,” required to be met before the new temporary worker program begins, does not require that the exit portion of U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date – to be in place before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the U.S. VISIT exit portion, the U.S. has no method to ensure that workers (or their visiting families) do not overstay their visas. Our current illegal population contains 4 to 5.5 million visa overstays, therefore, we know that the U.S. VISIT exit component is key to a successful new temporary worker program. [See pp. 1-2].

* Loophole 3 – Trigger Requires No More Agents, Beds, or Fencing Than Current Law:

The “enforcement trigger” does not require the Department of Homeland Security to have detention space sufficient to end “catch and release” at the border and in the interior. Even after the adoption of amendment 1172, the trigger merely requires the addition of 4,000 detention beds, bringing DHS to a 31,500 bed capacity. This is far short of the 43,000 beds required under current law to be in place by the end of 2007, or the additional 20,000 beds required later in the bill. Additionally, the bill establishes a “catch, pay, and release” program. This policy will benefit illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico that are caught at the border, then can post a $5,000 bond, be released and never show up for deportation hearings. Annual failure to appear rates for 2005 and 2006, caused in part by lack of detention space, doubled the 2004 rate (106,000 – 110,000 compared with 54,000). Claims that the bill “expands fencing” are inaccurate. The bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed [See pp. 1-2, & 10-11, and EOIR’s FY2006 Statistical Yearbook, p. H2, and The Secure Fence Act of 2004].

* Loophole 4 -- Three Additional Years Worth of Illegal Aliens Granted Status, Treated Preferentially To Legal Filers:

Aliens who broke into the country illegally a mere 5 months ago, are treated better than foreign nationals who legally applied to come to the U.S. more than two years ago. Aliens who can prove they were illegally in the U.S. on January 1, 2007, are immediately eligible to apply from inside the U.S. for amnesty benefits, while foreign nationals that filed applications to come to the U.S. after May 1, 2005 must start the application process over again from their home countries. Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to have been here before January 7, 2004 to qualify for permanent legal status. [See pp. 263, 282, & 306].

* Loophole 5 – Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status:

Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (Last year’s bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].

* Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible:

Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]

* Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required:

Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show “good moral character.” Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having “good moral character” and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].

* Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible:

Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].

* Loophole 9 – Absconders Are Eligible:

Aliens who have already had their day in court – those subject to final orders of removal, voluntary departure orders, or reinstatement of their final orders of removal – are eligible for amnesty under the bill. The same is true for aliens who have made a false claim to citizenship or engaged in document fraud. More than 636,000 alien fugitives could be covered by this loophole. [See p. 285:19-22 which waives the following inadmissibility grounds: failure to attend a removal proceeding; final orders of removal for alien smuggling; aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations or deportation orders; and aliens previously removed. This appears to conflict with language on p. 283:40-41. When a direct conflict appears in a statute, the statue is interpreted by the courts to the benefit of the alien.].

* Loophole 10 – Learning English Not Required For A Decade:

Illegal aliens are not required to demonstrate any proficiency in English for more than a decade after they are granted amnesty. Learning English is not required for an illegal alien to receive probationary benefits, the first 4-year Z visa, or the second 4-year Z visa. The first Z visa renewal (the second 4-year Z visa) requires only that the alien demonstrate an “attempt” to learn English by being “on a waiting list for English classes.” Passing a basic English test is required only for a second Z visa renewal (the third 4-year Z visa), and even then the alien only has to pass the test “prior to the expiration of the second extension of Z status” (12 years down the road). [See pp. 295-296].

* Loophole 11 – Earned Income Tax Credit Will Cost Taxpayers Billions In Just 10 Years:

Current illegal aliens and new guest workers will be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a refundable tax credit designed to encourage American citizens and legal permanent residents to work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this loophole will cost the U.S. taxpayer up to $20 billion dollars in just the first 10 years after the bill’s enactment. To be consistent with the intent of the 1996 welfare reforms – which limited new immigrants from receiving public benefits until they had been legal permanent residents for five years – the bill should withhold EITC eligibility from amnestied aliens until they become legal permanent residents. Closing this loophole will save the taxpayers billions of dollars. [See p. 293 after S.A. 1190 was adopted, p. 307, p. 315, §606. All that is required for EITC eligibility is a social security number and resident alien status. Nothing in the bill’s tax provisions limit EITC eligibility. The issuance of social security numbers to aliens as soon as they apply for amnesty will ensure they are able to qualify for the EITC.]

* Loophole 12 – Affidavits From Friends Accepted As Evidence:

Records from day-labor centers, labor unions, and “sworn declarations” from any non-relative (acquaintances, friends, coworkers, etc) are to be accepted as evidence that the illegal alien has satisfied the bill’s amnesty requirements. This low burden of proof will invite fraud and more illegal immigration – even aliens who are not yet in the U.S. will likely meet this burden of proof. DHS will not have the resources to examine whether the claims contained in the “sworn declarations” of the alien’s friends (that the alien was here prior to January 1, 2007 and is currently employed) are actually valid. [See p. 293: 13-16].

* Loophole 13 – Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel and Arbitration:

Free legal counsel and the fees and expenses of arbitrators will be provided to aliens that have been working illegally in agriculture. The U.S. taxpayer will fund the attorneys that help these individuals fill out their amnesty applications. Additionally, if these individuals have a dispute with their employer over whether they were fired for “just cause,” DHS will “pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator.” [See p. 339:37-41, & p. 332: 37-38.]

* Loophole 14 – In-State Tuition and Student Loans:

In-state tuition and other higher education benefits, such as Stafford Loans, will be made available to current illegal aliens that are granted initial “probationary” status, even if the same in-state tuition rates are not offered to all U.S. citizens. This would normally violate current law (8 U.S.C. §1623) which mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary education benefits they offer to illegal aliens. [See p. 321: 8-31].

* Loophole 15 – Inadequacy of the Merit System:

The “merit system,” designed to shift the U.S. green card distribution system to attract higher skilled workers that benefit the national interest, is only a shell of what it should have been. Though the merit system begins immediately, it will not increase the percentage of high skilled immigrants coming to the United States until 2016, 8 years after enactment. Of the 247,000 green cards dedicated to the merit based system each year for the first 5 years, 100,000 green cards will be reserved for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). From 2013 to 2015, the number of merit based green cards drops to 140,000, and of that number, 100,000 green cards are still reserved each year for low-skilled guest workers (10,000) and for clearing the current employment based green card backlog (90,000). Even after 2015, when the merit system really begins (in 2016) by having 380,000 green cards annually, 10,00 green cards will be reserved specifically for low skilled workers, and points will be given for many characteristics that are not considered “high-skilled.” For example, 16 points will be given for aliens in “high demand occupations” which includes janitors, maids, food preparation workers, and groundskeepers. [See p.260: 25 – p. 261: 20, p. 262, & The Department of Labor’s list of “occupations with the largest job growth” available at www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm].

* Loophole 16 – Visas For Individuals That Plan To Overstay:

The new “parent” visa contained in the bill which allows parents of citizens, and the spouses and children of new temporary workers, to visit a worker in the United States is not only a misnomer, but also an invitation for high rates of visa overstays. This new visa specifically allows the spouse and children of new temporary workers who intend to abandon their residence in a foreign country, to qualify to come to the U.S. to “visit.” The visa requires only a $1,000 bond, which will be forfeited when, not if, family members of new temporary workers decide to overstay their 30 day visit. Workers should travel to their home countries to visit their families, not the other way around. [See p. 277:1 – 33, and p. 276: 38-43].

* Loophole 17 – Chain Migration Tippled Before Being Eliminated:

Though the bill will eventually eliminate chain migration (relatives other than spouses and children of citizens and legal permanent residents), it will not have full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will actually triple, from approximately 138,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 14% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis) to approximately 440,000 chain migrants a year (equal to 45% of the 1 million green cards the U.S. currently distributes on an annual basis). [See pp. 260:13, p. 270: 29 – pp. 271: 17]

* Loophole 18 – Back Taxes Not Required:

Last year’s bill required illegal aliens to prove they had paid three of their last five years of taxes to get amnesty. This year, payment of back taxes is not required for amnesty. The bill requires taxes to be paid at the time of application for a green card, but at that time, only proof of payment of Federal taxes (not state and local) is required for the years the alien worked on a Z visa, not the years the alien has already worked illegally in the United States. Though Senator McCain’s S.A. 1190, adopted by voice vote, claimed to “require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes,” the amendment actually only required proof of payment of taxes for “any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i).” Since the bill does not contain a subparagraph (D)(i), nor require any past years of employment as a prerequisite for amnesty, the amendment essentially only requires proof of payment of taxes for future work in the U.S., not payment of “back taxes.” [See p. 307, and p. 293 as altered by S.A. 1190, amendment p. 2: 19-20.]

* Loophole 19 – Social Security Credits Allowed For Some Illegal Work Histories:

Aliens who came to the U.S. on legal visas, but overstayed their visas and have been working in the U.S. for years, as well as illegal aliens who apply for Z visa status but do not qualify, will be able to collect social security credits for the years they worked illegally. Under the bill, if an alien was ever issued a social security account number – all work-authorized aliens who originally came on legal visas receive these – the alien will receive Social Security credits for any “quarters of coverage” the alien worked after receiving their social security account number. Because the bill requires social security account numbers to be issued “promptly” to illegal aliens as soon as they are granted “any probationary benefits based upon application [for Z status]” (these benefits are granted 24 hours after the application is filed), an illegal alien who is denied Z visa status but continues to work illegally in the U.S. will accumulate Social Security credits. [See pp. 316:8 – 16, and pp. 315: 32-39]

* Loophole 20 – Criminal Fines Not Proportional To Conduct:

The criminal fines an illegal alien is required to pay to receive amnesty are less than the bill’s criminal fines for paperwork violations committed by U.S. citizens, and can be paid by installment. Under the bill, an illegal alien must pay a $1,000 criminal fine to apply for a Z visa, and a $4,000 fine to apply for a green card. Eighty percent of those fines can be paid on an installment plan. Under the bill’s confidentiality provisions, someone who improperly handles or uses information on an alien’s amnesty application can be fined $10,000. Administration officials suggest that the bill’s “criminal fines are proportionate to the criminal conduct.” Why, then, is the fine for illegally entering, using false documents to work, and live one-tenth the fine for a paperwork violation committed by a government official? [See p. 287: 34, p. 317: 9, p. 315:6-8, & remarks made by Secretary Gutierrez on Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4:00 May 31, 2007]

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:18 PM

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 05:20 PM

disintegrate the economy?

first off, the work that mexicans do contribute over 100 bilion dollars a year into the econonmy,yet it only costs around 20 billion to keep them here. aren't they paying their rent?

second, illegal immigrants have been coming over the border since the 1800's,since the mexican-american war, and the spanish-american war. that is when the majority of them did come over the border. BUT NO ONE MADE AN ISSUE OF IT UNTIL 9/11 WHEN WHITE AMERICA BECAME SCARED OF BROWN PEOPLE.

thrid off, they do the majority of the food harvesting and construction work in america, they have been for the past few decades. THEY ARE AMERICA. if it wasnt for the food industry and construction industry, america would be shit, and illegal mexicans are doing all the work.

fourth, on the topic of health care, did you know that white-american white-collar fraud steals almost 200 billion dollars a year out of the medical system. and thats for what? new SUV's and 5th summer homes? yet when someone actually needs real free healthcare,the american public gets into a racist uproar?

you know whos illegal? europeans. europeans came here illegally, and genocided over 200 million indiginous americans,and then european style government and politics and people have nerve to call native americans illegal?

you know who did it before chicanos were here? us. white, black, etc.
you know what happened when the goverment raided the tyson chicken
plant for illegals and shipped off 2,000 of them? there was a line of legal american workers waiting to work the next morning.

did you know that 30% of the 300 million people here are illegals by the mexican
governments own statistics.

i'll discuss this more in a while. i've got some work to do at the moment.

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:20 PM

also the majority of people on welfare in america are white americans,fact.thats whos draining the economy. also out-sourcing of jobs by american companies. also corporate fraud by white americans. also tax evasion by american corporations(walmart doesnt pay taxes due to a loophole).also pointless wars. also insurance fraud by white collar americans.also a european based-white majority government filled with absolute imbeciles who just want to line their pockets.

not mexicans who come here to do the work that americans are to good to do,because it doesnt pay enough money for a new suv and big screen tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdfqWM

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:24 PM

you know who did it before chicanos were here? us. white, black, etc.

they have always been here.also remember, besides the native american aspect of the whole issue, spanish was the first european language of the americas,including north america. majority of west coast cities have spanish names. majority of the southern u.s cities have spanish names.

thats why english will never be america's official language,no matter how hard they try.

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 05:39 PM

Plan of San Diego
University of Texas' Handbook of Texas Online
by Don M. Coerver

With the outbreak of revolution in northern Mexico in 1910, federal authorities and officials of the state of Texas feared that the violence and disorder might spill over into the Rio Grande valley. The Mexican and Mexican-American populations residing in the Valley far outnumbered the Anglo population. Many Valley residents either had relatives living in areas of Mexico affected by revolutionary activity or aided the various revolutionary factions in Mexico. The revolution caused an influx of political refugees and illegal immigrants into the border region, politicizing the Valley population and disturbing the traditional politics of the region. Some radical elements saw the Mexican Revolution as an opportunity to bring about drastic political and economic changes in South Texas. The most extreme example of this was a movement supporting the "Plan of San Diego," a revolutionary manifesto supposedly written and signed at the South Texas town of San Diego on January 6, 1915. The plan, actually drafted in a jail in Monterrey, Nuevo León, provided for the formation of a "Liberating Army of Races and Peoples," to be made up of Mexican Americans, African Americans, and Japanese, to "free" the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado from United States control. The liberated states would be organized into an independent republic, which might later seek annexation to Mexico. There would be a no-quarter race war, with summary execution of all white males over the age of sixteen. The revolution was to begin on February 20, 1915. Federal and state officials found a copy of the plan when local authorities in McAllen, Texas, arrested Basilio Ramos, Jr., one of the leaders of the plot, on January 24, 1915.

The arrival of February 20 produced only another revolutionary manifesto, rather than the promised insurrection. Similar to the original plan, this second Plan of San Diego emphasized the "liberation" of the proletariat and focused on Texas, where a "social republic" would be established to serve as a base for spreading the revolution throughout the southwestern United States. Indians were also to be enlisted in the cause. But with no signs of revolutionary activity, state and federal authorities dismissed the plan as one more example of the revolutionary rhetoric that flourished along the border. This feeling of complacency was shattered in July 1915 with a series of raids in the lower Rio Grande valley connected with the Plan of San Diego. These raids were led by two adherents of Venustiano Carranza, revolutionary general, and Aniceto Pizaña and Luis De la Rosa, residents of South Texas. The bands used the guerilla tactics of disrupting transportation and communication in the border area and killing Anglos. In response, the United States Army moved reinforcements into the area.

A third version of the plan called for the foundation of a "Republic of Texas" to be made up of Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, and parts of Mississippi and Oklahoma. San Antonio, Texas, was to serve as revolutionary headquarters, and the movement's leadership continued to come from South Texas. Raids originated on both sides of the Rio Grande, eventually assuming a pattern of guerilla warfare. Raids from the Mexican side came from territory under the control of Carranza, whose officers were accused of supporting the raiders. When the United States recognized Carranza as president of Mexico in October 1915, the raids came to an abrupt halt. Relations between the United States and Carranza quickly turned sour, however, amid growing violence along the border. When forces under another revolutionary general, Francisco (Pancho) Villa, attacked Columbus, New Mexico, in March 1916, the United States responded by sending a large military force under Gen. John J. Pershing into northern Mexico in pursuit of Villa. When the United States rejected Carranza's demands to withdraw Pershing's troops, fear of a military conflict between the United States and Mexico grew. In this volatile context, there was a renewal of raiding under the Plan of San Diego in May 1916. Mexican officials were even considering the possibility of combining the San Diego raiders with regular Mexican forces in an attack on Laredo. In late June, Mexican and United States officials agreed to a peaceful settlement of differences, and raids under the Plan of San Diego came to a halt.

The Plan of San Diego and the raids that accompanied it were originally attributed to the supporters of the ousted Mexican dictator Gen. Victoriano Huerta, who had been overthrown by Carranza in 1914. The evidence indicates, however, that the raids were carried out by followers of Carranza, who manipulated the movement in an effort to influence relations with the United States. Fatalities directly linked to the raids were surprisingly small; between July 1915 and July 1916 some thirty raids into Texas produced only twenty-one American deaths, both civilian and military. More destructive and disruptive was the near race war that ensued in the wake of the plan as relations between the whites and the Mexicans and Mexican Americans deteriorated in 1915-16. Federal reports indicated that more than 300 Mexicans or Mexican Americans were summarily executed in South Texas in the atmosphere generated by the plan. Economic losses ran into the millions of dollars, and virtually all residents of the lower Rio Grande valley suffered some disruption in their lives from the raids. Moreover, the plan's legacy of racial antagonism endured long after the plan itself had been forgotten.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Don M. Coerver and Linda B. Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910-1920 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1984). Charles C. Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley-1915," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 57 (January 1954). Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler, "The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican-U.S. War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination," Hispanic American Historical Review 58 (August 1978). Friedrich Katz, The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States and the Mexican Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). James A. Sandos, "The Plan of San Diego: War and Diplomacy on the Texas Border, 1915-1916," Arizona and the West 14 (Spring 1972). James Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904-1923 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992).

the sun y el sol

06-21-2007, 05:47 PM

Plan of San Diego
University of Texas' Handbook of Texas Online
by Don M. Coerver

http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lynching.jpg

http://www.iwchildren.org/covrup/carlisekids1.jpg

http://www.rulen.com/kkk/kkkflag2.jpg

lord_casek

06-21-2007, 06:14 PM

i want you to be honest with me sun y.
what would happen to americans if they went to mexico
illegally, moved into mexico city and started demanding
free health care, english in schools for their children, free medical care,
english on the signs in supermarkets, tax breaks, etc?

yumone

06-22-2007, 12:19 AM

im guessing no attention would be paid to them and theyd die because americans are too useless to cope in another society

lord_casek

06-22-2007, 02:07 AM

coming from someone who's ancestors were sent to an island because of their criminal charges, that doesn't hold very much weight.

angelofdeath

06-22-2007, 03:00 AM

haha, damn this is funny. considering how ron paul was saying that when you subsidize something you get more of it, and how these govt programs cause resentment and make illegal immigrants the scape goats during the cnn debate.

blah blah blah, kill whitey, every non citizen in the world deserves hand outs from the US governments, corporations kill people, blah blah blah

DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER

06-22-2007, 08:01 AM

Ron Paul is a fucking Republican! How the fuck can you niggas even seriously be talking about a fucking Republican? What the fuck is the matter with you people???

DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER

06-22-2007, 08:04 AM

yumone

06-22-2007, 12:25 PM

^I'm not even going to bother reading through any of the other posts on here.
I can't believe you people are even talking about a fucking Republican. I just remembered why I steer clear of Crossfire to begin with.

im guessing its because you;'re to unintelligent to see anything beyond black and white. And thus you see a word like republican and automatically think he must be terrible and then go and vote for hilary clinton because the word 'democrat' is more papealign to you. It's that attitude that makes the system run so smoothly props

yumone

06-22-2007, 12:26 PM

coming from someone who's ancestors were sent to an island because of their criminal charges, that doesn't hold very much weight.

hahahaha

Australians were sent here with nothing and built the country up. Id like to see some americans do the same. (without using slave labour)

lord_casek

06-22-2007, 04:16 PM

hahahaha

Australians were sent here with nothing and built the country up. Id like to see some americans do the same. (without using slave labour)

chill out, i was just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

drunken asshole oner: you are seriously confused. republicans and neo-conservatives are two different animals.

banana fish

06-22-2007, 06:04 PM

I work at a job where a large amount of our customers are chinese and mexican immigrants.
We accomadate these customers by hiring spanish speaking and chinese speaking employees and have deposit/ withdrawal slips in english/ spanish, chinese. I find no problem with doing things like this a. becuase when this country first began english was not the primary language, b. i think about my ancestors who when they moved from california to colorado where there was minimal "color", basically their culture was raped from them by discrimination and they had no help what so ever in learnign english and no accomadations becuase they didnt speak the language. It may be wrong for people to come to America from other countries to work and send the money back to their home country "disintegrating the economy" but the whole reason they are doing it is the economy they lived in is shit, some countries are in ruins becuase of america. So can you really blame them. Casek is right there are many loopholes in the system that allow them to stay here but i think this is becuase no matter how hard Americans try to say that Immagrants are taking their jobs Americans would never work these jobs anyways and if they did the price in produce would go up immensly making shit too expensive. So Immigrants dont have healthcare, work cheaply, get treated like dirt,and techinically they do take jobs away from legal citizens, have minimal accomadations for the whole language thing but in turn send their money back to their home country where it probably feeds and houses a family so that they can live and we get our shit for cheaper i think honeslty even though it sounds like i am supporting sun y el sol that they balance eachother out and the only way we will dimminish the amount of immigrants we have in this country is if America for one stops screwing over indigenous countries to beagan with or helps them in a way were it will not benefit them pick they're feet up. Anyway to conclude for the past month my job has not had any of the yellow wiithdrawal slips that have english on them and I cant tell you how many times people have complained that they cant find the right slip and that the only slips out there are in chinese/ spanish...the thing that gets me is that the slips are in both chinese and english. My customers are just too lazy and stupid to pay attention

lord_casek

06-22-2007, 06:24 PM

banana fish

06-22-2007, 07:16 PM

you know what, it doesn't piss me off so much that they come here and work.
what pisses me off is when the la raza, la mecha, etc come here and talk about
exterminating the whole of america, save for hispanics. it pisses me off when they come here
and talk shit about me in spanish and wave their mexican flags.
fuck that. this is america. you come here and take our money, take advantage of our
systems, and then you want to go shit on my country by saying "kill whitey". get the fuck out of here.
you just don't come here illegally and then start demanding shit. fuck that.

True that is wrong but i dunno it might just be the groups I have seen but generally they are not made up of immigrants and the people that run those groups are legal citizens. They just hate white people thats all...probably because all the bullshit their forefathers had to go through when they first came to this country or honestly the bullshit they have to deal with soemtimes for being a person of color

This doesnt have anything to do with Ron Paul though...I personally think he would be a good canidate for presidency he's one of the only politicians who actually takes the constitution into consideration.

Juan Fuentes

06-22-2007, 07:57 PM

messicans,not all,have this idea of reproducing till the point they can revolt against the "whites" and kill them all,take over their land,then probably convert it into another mexico which consists of corrupt WHITE liders controlling them while most of them get drunk and want to be cool,show up in movies or look tough, a culture of alcohol i could say...
the amnesty for all its only a way to get all those people to pay the FEE to become legal and use that money to enforce the nwo idea...total chaos,plus all those ignorant men and women who,if the nwo scum makes this bill posible, will worship them and donate their kids to their army...

yumone

06-23-2007, 01:38 AM

chill out, i was just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

drunken asshole oner: you are seriously confused. republicans and neo-conservatives are two different animals.

yeha i was havign a laugh aobut it man not worked up in the lsightest i think its heaps funny hwne people pay aussies out for their convict heritage

yumone

06-23-2007, 01:42 AM

ILOTSMYBRAIN

06-23-2007, 01:53 AM

lets point a finger at everyone, we'll accomplish a lot that way.

lord_casek

06-23-2007, 02:56 AM

you probably hate that jsut as much as people of colour (blacks, mexicans, native americans) hate having skinheads and kkk profiting off their slavery, labour, and extermination respectively and then waving their flags tlaking aobut killing them

i dislike any racist group. i think humans should have been past that a long time ago. unfortunately, we're not. assholes like jesse jackson keep popping up and stirring the pot.

russell jones

06-25-2007, 02:31 PM

i dislike any racist group. i think humans should have been past that a long time ago. unfortunately, we're not. assholes like jesse jackson keep popping up and stirring the pot.

"After years of enduring America at home and watching her abroad, I am convinced that I will die in a society as racially divided as the one into which I was born more than a half century ago. This no longer appears to concern white Americans." [Randall Robinson, 1998]

vanfullofretards

06-29-2007, 04:23 AM

John Stossel on the free market and libertarianism (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1429112668)

vanfullofretards

06-29-2007, 09:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VyCrs-QoY

Juan Fuentes

07-02-2007, 03:31 AM

for those interested in the latest ron paul videos,interviews...

interviewed by lee rogers(long interview,4 parts)
all in one...http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/250607_b_Paul.htm
youtube video part 1...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-VNVqtcywU

g4 attack of the show quick interview
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/

Juan Fuentes

07-05-2007, 11:36 PM

Unbelieveable Censorship of Ron Paul at a Marlins Game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbWNxWHYNzU)

vanfullofretards

07-06-2007, 03:50 AM

Uhhhh.... they were in a privately owned stadium. Freedom of speech doesn't really apply there. Yeah everyones out to get Ron Paul.. it's a big conspiracy :rolleyes:

READ BOOKS FOOOOLZ

lord_casek

07-06-2007, 07:43 AM

Uhhhh.... they were in a privately owned stadium. Freedom of speech doesn't really apply there. Yeah everyones out to get Ron Paul.. it's a big conspiracy :rolleyes:

READ BOOKS FOOOOLZ

it is a conspiracy of sorts.

Juan Fuentes

07-09-2007, 03:48 AM

so ron paul excluded from the last debate sponsored by fairtax, some dudes there for tax relief and against the IRS and ron paul the hardcore anti-IRS guy is not invited?
well,i think it was better that way because of what happened,although we didnt hear much in the tv news..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ

lots of people yes

ILOTSMYBRAIN

07-09-2007, 04:52 PM

Word, and his speech was bad ass too.

HAHA I just watched the YouTube video, them marching through the lobby like that was fucking classic.

lord_casek

07-09-2007, 10:11 PM

wow...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ABC_Stephanopoulos_interviews_Paul_Gravel_on_0709. html

Juan Fuentes

07-09-2007, 11:38 PM

i was about to post that interview with ron paul,that dirty rat george sputolous saying "its not gonna happen + a pedo smile" boiled my blood!

lord_casek

07-09-2007, 11:42 PM

same here. ron paul wins so many straw polls...he's so popular with the people,
and the major media still denies him that. he knows, though. i'm glad he knows.

Edward Orenthal Norton

07-10-2007, 12:04 AM

he gonna legalize herb...hes got my vote..

lord_casek

07-10-2007, 12:06 AM

he gonna legalize herb...hes got my vote..

well, actually he's gonna make it up to the states.
that is the original intent of the law, but shit happened and
religious fanatics pressed for federal law...

yumone

07-10-2007, 01:10 AM

that scumbag is such a sleazy little cog in the political machine. How dare some little rat tell people who are campaigning for positive change that they have bo chance of being president, shows what he thinks of the ameriican public.

ILOTSMYBRAIN

07-10-2007, 04:29 PM

i can't believe i heard that shit.

i love "journalism" .

thinksmall

07-11-2007, 08:44 AM

this guy better win. those id cards, federal reserve banking shit. what the fuck. so far he is the only one i can see in a big seat that is sane. everything thats going on.. its really wrong.

everyone should go out of their minds telling people about this guy. like, make flyers. post up stickers. go march and whatever. i always thought this kinda stuff was stupid and what not.... but i think we're in big trouble. and this dude is the savior.

worse thing that could happen is the guys in big places assassinates him. it sounds crazy.. but its happened before i guess. iunno. i tihnk im just nuts. but if this happens.. i expect a rebellion or something like that.

but srsly, he needs to win.

lord_casek

07-11-2007, 11:01 AM

i think it's great that so many young people are involved
in getting a politician elected.

keep up what you're doing, thinksmall.

write on money "ronpaul2008.com", call or email your reps when you oppose something
they are doing.

most importantly, familiarize yourself with your rights and your constitution.

Dawood

07-13-2007, 11:27 PM

Presidential Candidate Warns of Staged Terror Attacks
Body: Liebchen Protesting 800 FEMA Camps Nationwide

Leo/FightNWO-Defeating World Government!!

Ron Paul: U.S. In "Great Danger" Of Staged Terror

Congressman & presidential candidate warns of economic collapse precipitated by bombing of Iran

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 13, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in "great danger" of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation while also warning that a major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon and could be precipitated by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.

"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

"Every day we're in worse shape and right now there's an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq and we're quite concerned that the attack will be on Iran and that will jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we're in much greater danger than we even were four or five years ago," asserted Paul.

The presidential candidate expressed his despair that the situation in Iraq will not change until there is a total collapse of the American economy.

"There's no way we can afford what we're doing, whether it's domestic spending or the international spending and very few people talk about the real cost of this economically speaking....this is unsustainable and it will be a threat to our dollar," said Paul, adding that the onset of the meltdown could be sparked by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.

The Congressman added that the collapse was in its early stages with the major indication being a reduction in the living standard of middle class Americans but that "one single major world event" could change things overnight and precipitate a major downturn.

Paul added that there had "not been a national discussion on monetary policy in many many years" and the increasingly bleak outlook for the U.S. economy was also bringing more attention to the solutions the Congressman has proposed for reducing the burden of the mammoth national deficit.

Paul said that national and world events, especially the degrading situation in Iraq, were attracting support for his presidential campaign due to his resolute position on embracing a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Congressman concluded by surmising that record lows in approval ratings for Bush, Cheney and Congress showed that, "The American people are alive and well and disgusted yet they haven't had good alternatives....it's justifiable, they are looking for true answers and options and quite frankly I think that's probably one of the reasons why our campaign is growing by leaps and bounds right now."

Click here to listen to the MP3 of the interview with Ron Paul.

Please Digg This Article (Click here)

Juan Fuentes

07-14-2007, 05:27 PM

yeah dawood,thats ron paul,he is running for president,the guy knows a lot,he is not into for just the win, you can see it in him, through him we can acchive a more peaceful society...

i heard they have moved into the persian gulf...maybe stage a false flag (God forbid!) in the next days, july 21 is aproaching, 7/21/07 3 X 7 = 21 , u know, stupid freemason weirdos and their numerology...

Dawood

07-15-2007, 12:29 AM

I know who he is, but I don't vote.
I'm buying land overseas, InshaAllah. They really don't want muslims in America anyway.
We just need to wake up and realize that. There is a way to coexist peacefully, but voting for their way of life and abandoning Allah's laws is not the way.

lord_casek

07-19-2007, 03:00 PM

ron paul business cards. print them, share them
http://www.mediafire.com/?4y3m1ktnet1

vanfullofretards

08-03-2007, 02:40 AM

Ron Paul at Google HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmKwlE3fO-Y)

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:26 AM

whos ron paul?

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:27 AM

THAT DJ FROM THREE 6 MAFIA

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:27 AM

oh nvm little ronnie came over for some tea wun day

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:28 AM

oh yeah it is that dj from 3 6 mafia

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:28 AM

word...i heard dat dude makes some bomb ass cookies

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:29 AM

when my hands are cold...i put them in....my pockets

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:29 AM

love his walnut cookies.. and his brownies are amazing

[no homo]

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:30 AM

i put my hands on my nuts when dey cold

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:30 AM

nah man they werent brownies...i warned you about that shit

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:30 AM

:D :D i put my hands on my nuts when dey cold

BUUUMP!!:D :D :D

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:33 AM

bump da bump :) :) :)

:D :D

BUUUMP!!:D :D :D

BlackbookKWC

08-03-2007, 03:33 AM

bump da bump :) :) :)
BUMPP THE BUMP FROM THE BUMP OF MY BUMP

sniekz

08-03-2007, 03:34 AM

BUMPP THE BUMP FROM THE BUMP OF MY BUMP

word.

lord_casek

08-05-2007, 08:26 PM

ron paul blasts neo-cons
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958

lord_casek

08-05-2007, 09:14 PM

vote now
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3444367&page=1

vanfullofretards

08-05-2007, 11:03 PM

Are they going to show the debate again?

lord_casek

08-05-2007, 11:22 PM

Are they going to show the debate again?

not clear on that. when there is video on the interweb, i'll post it.

lord_casek

08-06-2007, 06:47 AM

fox news interview
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/08/05/just-come-home-ron-paul-gives-best-interview-yet-on-fox-news/

boogie hands

08-06-2007, 05:53 PM

he has a lot of great ideas. its really a bummer he is against the reproductive rights of women and writes nauseating drivel like this....

The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003

boogie hands

08-06-2007, 05:57 PM

lord_casek

08-06-2007, 09:27 PM

oh, if i didnt make it clear, i wont be listening to anything ron paul has to say from here on out. you cant be "for the people" while simultaneously parading under such an elitist, exclusionary banner as christianity.

he's a christian, get over it.
he's not against womens rights,
he is for leaving it up to the states...
as originally intended by our founding
fathers.

boogie hands

08-07-2007, 01:59 AM

id get over it if he were my neighbor or a co-worker but he is running for the highest office in our nation! are you kidding? anyway, christianity (and obvious disdain for anyone who may be uncomfortable around his religion [also, quick note, it is suspected and in some cases confirmed that many of the founding fathers of mr pauls great christian nation were in fact athiests and diests. whoops!]) aside this leaving it up to the states is fucking garbage. i know you guys are dazzled by mr. government of the people here but you need to realize statements like that are made as to not set off the radar of people who could be turned off by such an idiotic stance. his websites statement pretty much proves my point....

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

Life and Liberty
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

wow, so either he was really lucky and never saw a potentially life threatening situation in all of his 40 long years as a doctor, he was putting the lives of undeveloped beings above those of living, breathing women, or the majority of doctors are wrong and situations like this simply dont exist. amazing.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

wait...its seems like that would essentially turn abortion into murder huh? no, no. hes taking a passive role. its the people decision after all....just as the founding father would want it to be.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

yes, once again, quite passive. he is obviously more concerned with leaving it up to the state than he is about his cause. luckily it still works out for him since many states are working to ban abortion or place increased, unreasonable restrictions on the practice.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

as your naive statement proves casek, he is playing you guys hard and i have no doubt this is and isolated incident. ill be interested to see how the reaction to him changes as time goes on and the newness wears off.

also, if you dont consider a self proclaimed hardline pro-lifer someone who is against womens reproductive rights then who exactly would be?

lord_casek

08-07-2007, 02:48 AM

lord_casek

08-07-2007, 02:53 AM

here's dr. paul's voting record
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

the sun y el sol

08-07-2007, 03:10 AM

ru paul stands no chance, since he is against immigration,and america is a country of immigrants,every last one of you,unless you are native american.

lord_casek

08-07-2007, 03:15 AM

ru paul stands no chance, since he is against immigration,and america is a country of immigrants,every last one of you,unless you are native american.

i'm part native american. but that doesn't matter.

dr. paul isn't against immigration, he is against illegal immigration.

btw: all the straw polls say differently about dr. paul and his chance.

p.s.: take a long look. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000

all the polls look like this.

the sun y el sol

08-07-2007, 05:48 AM

i'm part native american. but that doesn't matter.

dr. paul isn't against immigration, he is against illegal immigration.

btw: all the straw polls say differently about dr. paul and his chance.

p.s.: take a long look. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000

all the polls look like this.

so am i

lol @ republicants.

lord_casek

08-07-2007, 06:01 AM

so, you're gonna vote for someone who will do nothing for you or this country?
i won't lie to you, dems are going to keep us in this war, they are going to raise taxes, they are going to further the agenda of this administration.

it's all about power for most of these fools.

boogie hands

08-07-2007, 01:47 PM

you obviously have some sort of whitewash about you. it says, "hey! i'm intelligent."
but you aren't. you're just a sheep following in the words of eugenicists.

of course some of the founding fathers weren't "christians" as it is termed today. jefferson, for example. he was all about a higher power, he just wasn't for the monotheistic b/s that gets people into fights.

dr. paul has never voted for anything unconstitutional. he has never done anything in his political career that is unconstitutional. by leaving such things as abortion and marijuana legalization up to the states, he is doing what our founding fathers had in mind when they
penned the constitution of the united states.

first of all, thank you for the kind assessment of my character via internet. i always find those cute, especially when it comes from someone whom im disagreeing with. second, im not saying that ron paul have ever done anything unconstitutional. what i am saying is that from what i have seen it seems that each time he pulls this "leave it to the state as the constitution would have it" card, the majority of the current states rulings are in line with his views. abortion, marijuana, stem cell research...if left to the states this is not a battle ron pauls side would be on the losing side of. to restate myself in a less combative tone, i find it a little dubious. that coupled with his obvious religious undertones and what seems to me to be a willingness to bring faith based beliefs into politics makes me very wary of this whole ron paul celebration that is going on, regardless of how solid many of his views are.

if you want to say im wrong, say im wrong, but please refrain from personal jabs at my intelligence. its fucking garbage.

angelofdeath

08-07-2007, 11:20 PM

thinksmall

08-08-2007, 12:44 AM

ron pauls cool with gays. i gueess that kinda kinda shows what he values more. liberty than his religion.

you can argue about abortion for years, and i guess youd still get no where. i know i know.. its hard to compare freedom of a brand new life with the recklessness of a sexually active person.

and its not really even about abortion though. so ><

but..
1% of abortions are caused by rape. everyone else just didnt use a condom and/or doesnt take sex srsly enough. =/

thinksmall

08-08-2007, 12:46 AM

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

lord_casek

08-08-2007, 12:48 AM

i agree, we could talk about abortion for ages...but you knwo where it all leads back to?

eugenics.

i suggest everyone look into that more. very very scary.

what's even more scary is that some of the major black leaders are into that shit

thinksmall

08-08-2007, 01:05 AM

dude! i noees. scary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

fermentor666

08-08-2007, 03:34 AM

Juan Fuentes

08-08-2007, 04:04 AM

Eugenics? What the hell are you talking about?

I would never vote for someone who is pro-life or in favor of overturning Roe Vs. Wade. I think Paul's foreign policy is sound but his domestic policy is a nightmare that sounds really cool and scary-anti-establishment on paper but in reality would destroy the union. You might as well be voting for the break-up of the U.S.

how do you know? (you dont know)
dont be so nagative about it, the system he is down for is better than the one now...
it will destroy the union? i dont know about that, maybe you mean the north american union, yes it will eliminate its chances of taking place... now the states breaking up into pieces? i dont know why you see it as so bad, If it were to happen its because people want it.

vanfullofretards

08-08-2007, 06:12 AM

Not to mention the union wouldn't break up over something like abortion.

angelofdeath

08-08-2007, 11:24 AM

"You might as well be voting for the break-up of the U.S."

AWESOME!

even though that wouldnt happen, and the full force of DC's armies would rain down hard on any states that full out tried to secede, why is the idea of secession so repulsive? the michael moore crowd was advocating it right after the 2004 election. i wish they all would of left. would of been of great and voluntary benefit to everyone involved.

northern states in antebellum america used state powers and threats of secession to not enforce the horrible fugitive slave law. new england states almost seceded over calling the militia forth for the war of 1812.

but the real reason why the left hates the idea of secession, liberty, federalism and decentralization is because they cant mind thier own business. they cant possibly allow free people to govern themselves without having a hand in thier pocket, regulations tied around thier neck, telling them that all men are rapists, governments are benevolent and businesses create oppression, basically telling them how to live thier lives, and that atm fees are to high but taxes are too low.

there is no way that they would allow anyone to live how they want to when it is possible for them to run every aspect of thier lives for them. society doesnt need a central plan.

boogie hands

08-08-2007, 04:07 PM

ron paul did introduce federal legislation to say that life begins at conception. it is however quite clear that he is supportive of simply overturning roe v wade, which is a horrible decision from a standpoint of liberty. it goes down to the very basic core beliefs of someones philosophy. do you believe in a huge centralized government or a federal decentralized body of states. which do you support?

to not support ron paul because he is a christian, shows the extreme hypocrisy of liberals. they claim to be for diversity, and freedom of religion, as long as christianity isnt involved. everyone should be allowed to practice the religion they want to as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else. that is what ron paul supports.

all of ron paul's votes fall totally 100% inline with the constitution. with such a document as the supreme rule of law in the US, there is no one in our history who has a voting record as clearly consistent with liberty as dr paul's.

you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment that ron paul uses the stance of an anti federalist (decentralism, strong states rights) because it supports his views. he is simply for as small a government as humanely possible, existing soley for protection of life, liberty and property.

an issue as divisive as abortion must be left up to the states. there is no other alternative. federalism, the founding fathers best contribution to western civilization, the bulkwark against tyranny and monarchy, must be used whenever possible. can a central government in DC, really make 300 million people of 50 states happy? it cant. why should a body as big and diverse as the US be governed by the same central government? if federalism was upheld (the 10th amendment to the f;ing bill of rights) alabama could have abortion banned and massachussetts would have it legal. most abortions take place in blue states anyway, so what is the big deal? there is no right to kill your child any more than there is a right to free healthcare or entitlements.

a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.

im not really 100% sure how ron paul can introduce legislation which states life begins at contraception and then turn around and "leave it up to the states". do you see why that would strike me a being completely suspect and contradictory? i think his strategy is quite intelligent and makes him stand out amongst the other candidates but deep down he is still a republican and is still pumping their social, faith based agenda. the website below does a good job of showing the transparency of his seemingly hands off approach when it comes to social issues he does not agree with.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

my favorite jewel is his vote to ban gay adoption in DC, a state he has nothing to do with!!! how am i supposed to believe he will leave social issues up to the states when its documented that he has taken an active role to force his bigoted beliefs on others.

as far as not supporting ron paul due to his faith, i would feel the same were he muslim or a member of any other absurd religion. im personally suspect of anyones ability to make a decision if they freely admit the believe in words of the bible and a god who takes an active role in our life. its insanity and i think the fact that this regard we hold for the sanctity of peoples religious beliefs is cowardly and harmful. in my mind it is just as important a factor as someones political record. faith is a very strong force and i dont believe that it can exist in a person without affecting their decisions.

i was definitely in a reactionary, irrational mood when i stated that i wouldnt be listening to ron paul. i will be listening to ron paul because he has some good ideas. im just not willing to blindly jump on the ron paul bandwagon because of this adherence to the constitution that he is pimping these days. im just not convinced it is that cut and dry for him.

Juan Fuentes

08-08-2007, 05:57 PM

as far as not supporting ron paul due to his faith, i would feel the same were he muslim or a member of any other absurd religion.

you are mixing religion and politics, ron paul is not, he has a different mind due to his beliefs ,yes, but that cant cancel everything out because of your faith does not go along with his......what you want guliani,mccain,hillary? satanists?....out of all the choices ron paul is the best...or you think is another candidate? state it then!!

the breaking up the states things sounds like some will lose an image of what their are, their pride, will feel small, no more amuuurrrica #1 yuppies....

the smaller the area the easier for the citizens to control it, the larger the area the easier a government can control it.

boogie hands

08-08-2007, 06:34 PM

you put it best..."he has a different mind due to his beliefs". that is what i am wary of. as i said earlier, his actions lead me to believe he makes some political decisions based the teachings of his religion. maybe not nearly as many as george bush and his horrible administration of religious zealots, but the underlying views are there. now, if i happen to strongly disagree with the teaching of said religion, which i do, then it would stand to reason that i am not going to be very supportive of anyone who i feel could use those "values" in their decision making process. its that cut and dry. if he actually kept his faith to himself then he wouldnt be publishing insulting articles like the one above, he wouldnt be in support of bigoted policies such as "dont ask, dont tell" which only exists to cater to the moronic homophobia of christians (please, show me a homophobic atheist), he wouldnt be voting for vouchers for parochial schools....see what my big problem is here?

as i said above, he is a smart guy with some good ideas but im not going to trumpet him as the great savior in this race because, in my eyes, he has glaring flaws. as far as another candidate who i feel would be a better choice? how about kucinich since we are on the topic of long shots. maybe even nader if he decided to run.

look, you guys dont have to agree with me but your all sitting here acting like you cant understand why im not throating this guy. i honestly dont get it.

angelofdeath

08-08-2007, 08:48 PM

i've been on the ron paul bandwagon since 2001. so im no fly by night supporter.
ron paul has the only 100% pro liberty pro constitutional voting record in all of american history. no if's, ands, or buts about it.

ron pauls abortion stance comes from a deep reguard for life as well as a deep reguard for liberty in that all people have the right to life, liberty and property, not just some. but im not gonna argue this with you. i guess since RP is just a dirty republican, you gloss over his support for legalizing drugs nationally? those damn strong social republican values. 'only using 'leave it to the states' when it is in his interest?

angelofdeath

08-08-2007, 08:55 PM

"look, you guys dont have to agree with me but your all sitting here acting like you cant understand why im not throating this guy. i honestly dont get it."

eh, i think your just throating the guy because he isnt for mandatory forced, coercive programs, wars, foreign aid, interventions, etc. in your view because he doesnt support any group rights, only individual rights he is some sort of quasi racist. i could go on, but.......

boogie hands

08-08-2007, 09:17 PM

seriously, your acting like there are no nuances to this candidate and i have to be either 100% against him or 100% for him. im not glossing over the positives. if you want me to jump in the circle jerk with you guys i can certainly talk about how much i like his views on foreign matters but i think this thread has quite enough positivity. im simply trying to point out the fact that he isnt this golden god that this rabid internet fanbase is making him out to be. hes a politician and has been for quite sometime. id be careful not to forget that.

lord_casek

08-08-2007, 11:15 PM

maybe you're right to treat every politician as suspect until proven innocent. i do think dr. paul has an impeccable record, though.

angelofdeath

08-08-2007, 11:53 PM

"im simply trying to point out the fact that he isnt this golden god that this rabid internet fanbase is making him out to be."

i just happen to think his record is 100% golden. the only two issues i have ever had with the guy when he sponsored a federal amendment stating life begins at conception, (im pro life, but take a 100% antifederalist stance on the issue) and you could possibly make a case for him supporting the government regulating drug prices in medicare. his argument is that they already are spending the money, might as well let them get the best price. i agree with him now on this.

other than that, his record is more consistent than thomas jefferson's. there is nothing more to say in my view. if he was an athiest or a jew, i could care less. i tend to take a truly diverse perspective on people. i believe there is only individuals, not groups of people. individuals are the only ones with rights. not just white christians or black athiests. i hold no ones religion against them until proven otherwise. its not like bill clinton, jesse jackson, hillary and obama havent done any stumping from the pulpit, if you get my drift. they just dont get attacked by the left because they fit thier socialist world view.

fermentor666

08-10-2007, 06:50 AM

Hey, if you're all for breaking up the union, then so be it. But the rest of the country ain't going to be ok with it. And no, I don't mean that banning abortion would break up the union, but annihilating the IRS and leaving everything up to the individual states would led to the breakdown of the U.S., plus mass-poverty and even more crumbling infrastructure and the total annihilation of the education system in the poorer states.

And that's why Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell of becoming elected, ever. No one in the poorer states would stand for his domestic policy of literally leaving them stranded to fend for themselves, like some sick form of Social Darwinism. The Nazis tried out Social Darwinism and it didn't work. Not that Paul is a Nazi or anything, but still. I could do without Texas, and maybe Oklahoma, but I happen to like the United States and if you completely eliminate the IRS then we're fucked. If you want to deny it, lemme re-iterate that you're wrong, and your anger is mis-guided. It might seem cool and hip to hate the IRS and hate the federal government, but we'll all be drowning in shit otherwise. Again, most of this pro-Ron Paul shit is either coming from people who live in states that are fiscally sound or from idiot anarchists.

But his foreign policy is still probably the best in the Republican field.

I'm not debating this any further.

fermentor666

08-10-2007, 06:54 AM

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson was a far greater man even if you consider the fact that he owned slaves. Ron Paul's writings and speeches are so filled with contempt and hate and have none of the eloquence of Jefferson's writing. Jefferson helped to create this country and everything for which it stands. Ron Paul seems to want to tear it apart.

fermentor666

08-10-2007, 07:03 AM

And btw casek, you are so full of shit talking about eugenics.

lord_casek

08-10-2007, 08:41 AM

And btw casek, you are so full of shit talking about eugenics.

no, i am not.

lord_casek

08-10-2007, 08:42 AM

angelofdeath

08-10-2007, 11:11 AM

haha, 10 bucks says after fermentor reads my response the debate WILL continue.

given the fact that thomas jefferson declared secession from the british empire, supported secession of sovereign states, nullification and interposition of federal laws by the states, believed that taxes were stealing from the mouths of labor, advocated armed resistance against a tyrannical governments, believed in the absolute right to bear arms, believed in free trade and a small of government as humanely possible, and that ron paul mirrors him on all these same issues.... your analysis is totally ass backwards.

im quite positive that if the welfare checks ever stopped flowing, there would be riots. ron paul is not in favor of 'social darwinism' he is in favor of freedom, something which you hold in utter contempt.

the US had no means of collecting taxes from its citizens until 1913 other than import tariffs, brief periods of whiskey taxes and excise taxes on land sales and perhaps a couple others. income tax withholding wasnt even though of until 1943 and then the bastards said it was gonna be 'temporary.' yeah, withholding, a temporary wartime measure since 19f'ing43.

since im not in a state that is fiscally sound and im not an 'idiot' anarchist (isnt that what they used to call domestic 'terrorists' and 'enemy combatants' during ww1 who protested the war?) again, you are wrong.

if thomas jefferson or even his arch rival, alexander hamilton could see the federal government today, they would be the first people to pledge thier lives, fortunes and sacred honor and send the declaration of independence to the halls of congress and refuse to follow any unconstitutional laws.

i love it when people hear the idea of freedom and federalism that they think society will instantaneously collapse. what you are advocating is simply living off of other people through coerced tax collections. people think that people everyone will be eating dirt if there was freedom instead of a welfare state. total annihilation of the education system is a wonderful thing. all that is taught is that governments are benevolent and businesses create oppression, atm fees are too high but taxes are too low, all men are rapists, guns kill people, that the government can cure every ill for every person, that art didnt exist before federal funding, and i could go on. these youth propaghanda camps are what keeps america's youth as believers in the fuhrer like state that is the US government.

heaven forbid if the people had more liberty. they might even have to *gasp* work for a living! they might have to *gasp* handle thier own business! they might have to *gasp* raise thier own families! OMG@!@&$ DOOOOOOOD!

lets see what thomas jefferson would have done in times like these... considering he advocated armed revolt for independence over a miniscule set of taxes that pale in comparison to today... and that midevil serfs were only paying 25% to thier lords.... (we pay upwards of 50% in taxes if you count inflation)
jefferson might of helped to write something like this:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

lord_casek

08-10-2007, 12:02 PM

<applause>

this is the reason that you are one of a handful of
people whose posts i like to read.

fermentor666

08-10-2007, 07:25 PM

Too bad I didn't read your response. I know exactly what your arguments are and I still believe my opinion to be valid.

casek: Since you haven't actually explained how you think eugenics ties into abortion, I'm going to assume that you think there is some huge conspiracy to use abortions to weed minorities out the genetic pool or some such ludicrous bullshit.

fermentor666

08-10-2007, 07:46 PM

maybe you don't recall this or were never taught this, but there was a time in our coutnries history when we had no IRS.

Yeah, that was before the Civil War and before the creation of any sort of public hospitals, social security, welfare, pavement, highways, gigantic standing armies, space exploration, etc. etc.

A great example of why we need taxes would be space exploration, as private companies haven't even come close--except for that one company that offers a person 5 minutes in space for thousands of dollars. But I suppose you think the moon landing was fake, as well.

angelofdeath

08-10-2007, 09:00 PM

lord_casek

08-10-2007, 09:55 PM

hell, apparently fermentor doesn't even know that our federal taxes don't go to anything
that is in our country, they go to pay off the interest on national debt.

lord_casek

08-10-2007, 09:56 PM

El Mamerro

08-10-2007, 10:57 PM

Just wanted to chime in to say that as wasteful as space exploration might sound, it's probably one of the most important endeavors human beings have ever and will ever undertake, and should never be sacrificed at the expense of something else. It's sad to see how few people realize this.

Until private companies have enough of an economic incentive to really pump in the billions needed to do it, the government's gonna have to foot the bill.

angelofdeath

08-10-2007, 11:32 PM

"Until private companies have enough of an economic incentive to really pump in the billions needed to do it, the government's gonna have to foot the bill."

i just think that is a horrible, horrible argument. especially since the government doesnt have any money at all, except which it robs from its citizens.

El Mamerro

08-10-2007, 11:52 PM

Simply put, space exploration is a necessity. It's gotta be done, and it's gotta be done by whoever has the resources.

If anyone has them besides the government, I'd be more than happy to see them take over. NASA's run pretty ineptly as it is.

fermentor666

08-11-2007, 12:14 AM

HAHA! have you seen what happens in space exploration? do you know how much money is literally thrown down the toilet with space exploration? have you been awake for the last 40 years? space exploration is the perfect example of why governments shouldnt be in space.

Yeah, I've seen what has happened with space exploration and it's incredible. I don't know how you can look at some of the pictures from the Mars rovers, that have lasted years beyond their expected lifespan, and pictures from Hubble, which has also lasted years beyond its expected lifespan, and not be amazed. Clearly, you lack any sort of imagination and have no capacity for anything other than your stupid little politics.

fermentor666

08-11-2007, 12:14 AM

hell, apparently fermentor doesn't even know that our federal taxes don't go to anything
that is in our country, they go to pay off the interest on national debt.

You're wrong.

fermentor666

08-11-2007, 12:15 AM

actually, i know that is why abortion is such a large part of our culture now.
as are many other things. all part of the grand design.

You're crazy.

lord_casek

08-11-2007, 12:59 AM

maybe i thin you're crazy for not knowing this.
it is easily provable. that's because the people
in very high places write books and make speeches.
they brag about it.

the general public doesn't bother learning about the rockefeller dynasty.
no one cares about where bill and melinda are pushing their big bucks.
no one in the general public even knows that ted turner made a speech
on cspan calling us "useless feeders."

if we payed alittle more attention, we would all see that they are there.
the people you like to call me a conspiracy theorist for knowing about
are very, very real.

fermentor666

08-11-2007, 04:34 AM

Abortion is not mandatory, remember that. Rich people get abortions, smart people get abortions, stupid people get abortions, etc. It has nothing to do with eugenics. And I looked into your Ted Turner claim, all I found for evidence was a handful of message board postings simply stating that he said it while talking about Zionist conspiracies and the Illuminati, so you're going to have to do a little better than that. Bill and Melinda Gates are not putting money into abortions. Your web of conspiracies couldn't catch a fly when you put it all together. No one is using abortions to weed out the unwanted. The Nazis used eugenics when they euthanized people with mental disorders and physical deficiencies, and it was forced. No one is forcing anyone to have abortions. I am pro-choice and I will defend that stance till the day I die. I've had friends who have had abortions and there is NO WAY they could have raised a kid, no fucking way, without it being completely fucked. Instead of getting by alright with decent jobs, they would find themselves in poverty.

And sure, SOME of our taxes go towards paying the national debt, but why do you think we have that debt in the first place? From paying for all the programs I mentioned and more in the first place. So therefore, our federal taxes go towards those programs, whether you like it or not. And so even if all of our federal taxes go towards paying off only debts (which is untrue), then if you take them away what the fuck is going to pay the debts off? Monopoly money?

And our space program has been VERY successful with some very key, successful missions happening very recently, like the success of the Cassini probe/orbiter to Saturn. If you aren't for space programs (maybe this doesn't apply to you, casek), then you are a regressive grunt with no spirit or soul. Some of the most amazing, exciting, and breath-taking space observations have occurred within the last 5-10 years, stuff that dreams are made out of. I URGE you to go buy one of those big picture books of the universe of images from the Hubble, and you will be blown away. We are moving with great leaps and bounds into space exploration and to de-fund it would equate to the epitome of mediocrity and blandness.

I used various combinations of "ted turner", "useless feeders" and "CSPAN" and nothing came up, buddy. Find me video, if it was broadcast. I doubt that a man smart enough to create a media empire would say something like that on national television. I don't have any love for the guy and I think CNN is horseshit, but you're pulling at straws.

lord_casek

08-11-2007, 06:19 AM

i didn't say bill and melinda are putting money into abortions. eugenics.

"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.

fermentor666

08-11-2007, 07:21 AM

vanfullofretards

08-11-2007, 07:24 AM

Yeah, I've seen what has happened with space exploration and it's incredible. I don't know how you can look at some of the pictures from the Mars rovers, that have lasted years beyond their expected lifespan.

Weren't those solar panels made by a private company?. I bet most of the parts were.

lord_casek

08-11-2007, 07:28 AM

Provide me a link, I did a Google search and came up with nothing that supports your claim.

Anyway, isn't "useless feeders" kind of an oxymoron? "Feeders" have a use; their use is to feed. It does not make sense that a man of his intelligence would say something as stupid as that.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_16_15/ai_54543048

useless feeders implies we are just walking the earth eating their food.

taking up space.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

yumone

08-11-2007, 11:15 AM

i would take 'useless feeders' to mean that they are useless beyond the role in which they 'feed' resources into the hands of the elites.

casek in all seriousness what the fuck is wrong with saying the ideal population of earth is 300 million people? DO you not agree that the world is overpopulated with humans and that we are destroying it for not only ourselves but non-human animals and future generations?

until fossil fuels were made available for consumption the world population was always under a billion people for our entire history. in the hundred years since then it has gotten 6 times bigger and another billion people will be in this world in 12 years then 6 years after that another. Whats gonna happen to everyone when there isnt cheap energy anymore and a hundred million people all living in a city that doesnt produce any food cant get millions of tonnes of food transported in every day?

Im not saying we should go and kill poor people or any shit like that but i think there needs to be a massive shift in humanitys social conscience towards conservation and population control in terms of not having 8 kids and instead having one or maybe two and actually rasing them well and putting all your parentakl resources into them.

angelofdeath

08-11-2007, 11:31 AM

"And sure, SOME of our taxes go towards paying the national debt, but why do you think we have that debt in the first place? From paying for all the programs I mentioned and more in the first place. So therefore, our federal taxes go towards those programs, whether you like it or not. And so even if all of our federal taxes go towards paying off only debts (which is untrue), then if you take them away what the fuck is going to pay the debts off? Monopoly money?"

monopoly money is what pays off our debts right now. fiat money is backed by nothing but the FED buying US treasury bonds and putting zero's in congresses accounts. its no different than monopoly money that uncle sam has told everyone they must use for exchanges.
that is one way we pay for a miniscule portion of our debts. another way to pay for debts is borrowing money. considering that china basically finances most of our borrowing, that is also where alot of money comes from. thirdly national income taxes doesnt even pay the interest on the national debt. tariffs on steel and sugar is another revenue source. we send billions of dollars overseas. we send billions of dollars for crazy boondoggle wars that have nothing to do with national defense. we spend billions of dollars on ponzi scheme social programs that keep generations bogged down with incentives to not work, not raise a family, not take care of there kids and not be productive. the welfare warfare state is not some great benevolent creature. a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. and it has. it has taken most liberties that we fought in 1775 to retain. wishing for a state that does only good things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles.

but lets face facts, there is no way taxes can pay off our debts. spending, departments, bureaucrats, programs must be cut to get rid of this deficit. in fact i propose that all debts SHOULD be paid with taxes that way, if taxes were raised 200% we'd see just how happy americans are with this debt. then something might be done about the whole problem of this renegade, decieving government in DC.

angelofdeath

08-11-2007, 11:34 AM

"
casek in all seriousness what the fuck is wrong with saying the ideal population of earth is 300 million people? DO you not agree that the world is overpopulated with humans and that we are destroying it for not only ourselves but non-human animals and future generations?
"

i think the problem with this is that the left dwells on over population. what is the logical extension of this? perhaps what communist china does with abortions. perhaps killing some people. yet all these great and brave lefties who bring forth the necessity of reducing the human population all have it within thier capacity to reduce the population by one, yet i dont see any of them acting on it.
its horrible when you hear scientists say things like... 'as soon as we eliminate all the people from the earth, things start to look better.'

yumone

08-11-2007, 12:00 PM

i already said that i don't think active control is the right thing to do and suggested that we need a fundamental change in the way we think, in terms of our place in society and in terms of the family unit.

any person that has even the faintest spark of intelligence can see that the earth is unsustainably overpopulated and unless human society can change into a more community based family structure then we are doomed to continue exponentially increasing the human population for our own immediate self interest and we will have the weight of all possible future life on this planet on our shoulders.

lord_casek

08-11-2007, 04:06 PM

wow. that is insanity at work.

300 million is the population of the united states alone.

no, i don't think it's overpopulated. it's a huge planet.

i think we need to explore more options for fuel. i think

i think if the u.s. legalized hemp farming, it would help

a ton.

fermentor666

08-13-2007, 12:27 AM

Weren't those solar panels made by a private company?. I bet most of the parts were.

You think that private company did it for free? Who do you think paid them?

Should I take it as a good sign that none of you idiots are arguing that space exploration is a bad thing and that NASA hasn't done anything worthwhile?

DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER

08-13-2007, 09:56 AM

Ron Paul is a Republican.
Anybody that takes anything a Republican has to say seriously is either naive or a fucking moron.
Fuck Ron Paul.

Theo.Huxtable

08-13-2007, 10:14 AM

you've obviously not read or listened to anything ron paul has had to say. if you did, you'd know ron paul is against the public policies and direction that republican party has gone in recent years, and is against bush, the iraq war, against giuliani, against pre-emptive war, and against most other notable republicans and neo-conservatives. basically his feelings about many people in the republican party are almost along the lines as yours.

angelofdeath

08-13-2007, 11:35 AM

" You think that private company did it for free? Who do you think paid them?"

the federal government creates no wealth. it steals it from capitalists. do you work for free?

yumone

08-13-2007, 12:44 PM

Ron Paul is a Republican.
Anybody that takes anything a Republican has to say seriously is either naive or a fucking moron.
Fuck Ron Paul.

perfect example of a sheep bleating out the party line. A hundred bucks says this dude hasn't even the slightest knowledge of who Ron Paul is or what he stands for

lord_casek

08-13-2007, 10:51 PM

ron paul 1988
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

thinksmall

08-13-2007, 11:08 PM

^ LOL

ron paul is ill.

fermentor666

08-14-2007, 12:23 AM

" You think that private company did it for free? Who do you think paid them?"

the federal government creates no wealth. it steals it from capitalists. do you work for free?

What's the point of this response? I don't get why this response exists. You are essentially saying exactly what I am saying, except inserting the word "stealing" in for "taxing". I know your viewpoint on taxes all too well by now, so you don't need to re-iterate. Regardless of whether or not you consider it stealing, the space program is funded by taxpayer money and has done very well for itself, despite massive cuts in funding over the last few years, and the Columbia disaster. The disintegration of the Columbia shuttle could very well be due to lack of funding.

Either way, some of the money we pay goes toward this research, which has paid off very well in knowledge of the universe. OF COURSE, you might not give a shit since you seem more concerned with money. But again, the companies that are contracted for this sort of work operate under the same system as the rest of the country, and they are able to thrive under the capitalist system BECAUSE of the federal government, not in spite of the federal government. I'm not saying your stupid, but your logic does not seem to account for this aspect of the federal government, and therefore has some gaping holes. You wouldn't even be able to talk here if it were not for the federal government, its contracts, research, and your own money. You talk about the federal government as if it has never done any good for anyone, ever. I don't defend everything about it and find flaws within the system myself, but the difference between you and I is that I have the capacity to understand there are many sides to the story, while you only want to understand one side. You also throw the word "communism" and "socialist" around a little too freely, and I think it's catching on poor little confused casek, who sees it fit to call someone a fascist if they don't support Ron Paul. That's a sure-fire way to make enemies, not friends.

angelofdeath

08-14-2007, 12:48 AM

"I don't get why this response exists. You are essentially saying exactly what I am saying, except inserting the word "stealing" in for "taxing"."

it exists because the foundation of all these arguments is about using stolen money to fund projects and programs. it is stolen money because if you dont pay your taxes you will go to jail or be killed. plain and simple. where as private companies exchange goods and services for money all in a volunary manner. so when there is talk about the federal government needing to be involved in something because they have money, it is only because they have robbed it from the sectors of society that produce wealth. i think it needs to be stated constantly because it is the foundation of all these arguments and should not be overlooked.

fermentor666

08-14-2007, 07:24 AM

First, I have yet to hear of a person getting the death penalty for not paying their taxes.

Second, all capitalist countries have taxes.

Third, you will never have to stop paying taxes.

Fourth, you use the system, therefore you must pay for the privilege. Ain't nothing for free in this world, especially not citizenship.

Fifth, you apparently agree with me on space exploration which is cool.

Sixth, I know about taxes, I think that it's highway robbery that people have to pay so much, particularly once you go over a certain tax bracket and 50 percent of your earnings are taken from you. I don't think that it is fair to be taxed so much, and I am certainly not for raising taxes, but I also know that this country would fall apart if there was no taxes. What I do think is bullshit is sales tax, that shit needs to go. And at times I question the validity of being taxed on a paycheck from both the federal and state governments, which essentially equates to double taxation, which is technically what we are supposed to be free of in this country.

But taxes must exist. The proceeds just have to be used properly, instead of throwing billions at a war that we should have never gotten into and pork projects.

Another point, if we eliminate the majority of federal programs, as well as the IRS, we would make hundreds of thousands of people jobless. I think they would disagree with your views quite strongly, as well as the views of Ron Paul, which is why he will never get elected. I like that he is open and honest about what he wants to do, that is an admirable quality, but what he wants to do just won't work to do anything good and would send this whole country down the shithole. There are better solutions than crippling the system that holds this country together, someone just has to think of them first.

angelofdeath

08-14-2007, 11:44 AM

believe it or not im in favor of taxes to pay for elements of a constitutional republican government. like police, courts, defense, etc. many people have gotten the death penalty for taxes. if you forcibly resist going to court for not paying taxes you will be killed. in fact ed and elaine brown are probably going to be getting the 'death penalty' real soon.

eliminating federal programs and the IRS is a great idea. all those people instead of sucking off tax payers and the federal government's tit, they can move into more productive sectors of society. in fact, i think your argument about not cutting programs because people will lose jobs, is probably the best argument FOR cutting programs and departments. that way these people can stop being bureaucrats, wasting our money and can start producing in the market place.

as far as all capitalist countries having taxes, you might be right. but if everyone jumped off a cliff, should we jump off as well? the US historically has had very low taxes and were almost entirely paid for by import tariffs and land taxes. low import tariffs, with our economy could easily pay for constitutional government, even if the income tax was shut down right now. of course all our foreign and domestic imperialism and socialism would have to come to an end. but our government, set by constitutional restraints could EASILY be paid for.

im quite positive Ron Paul most likely wont win the presidency, but that will not stop me from supporting him. why would someone get elected to the federal government if they are going to try to cut half the bureaucracy of DC in his first week? the government tends to protect itsself first and foremost, the interests of the people are way down the list. who knows if ron paul wins, he might be assassinated on the inaugural stand by renegade federal employees!

if paul doesnt win, i feel that he just may set the stage for a massive takeover in the years to come. sort of like how goldwater set the stage for reagan, even though reagan turned out to not really hold true to his beliefs.

boogie hands

08-23-2007, 12:07 AM

actually, i know that is why abortion is such a large part of our culture now.
as are many other things. all part of the grand design.

holy fucking crap. are you joking?

so lets say there is some grand design. it would be certainly be led by the people who have been in power for centuries, those people being christians. so, if those christians were using abortion to develop their "master race" wouldnt they be supporting abortion? opening clinics that dont condemn women for seeking an abortion? things of that nature? maybe planned parenthood is some type of puppet organization that only targets faith based abstinence only programs as a front while ushering in the socially inferior through the back door.

seriously dude. you really have to stop with this "abortion is eugenics" shit. if you honestly view things like abortion, birth control and sexual education as some sort of grand exercise in race thinning then you need to stop reading infowars for a little while and get a handle on the real world that the rest of us live in. this garbage is making your 9/11 thread look intelligent.

ps - i was going to get into the whole bill and melinda gates quip but dont even know that i want to dignify that. concern for health and well being does not equal some eugenicist plan. fucking christ man, come on.

Juan Fuentes

08-23-2007, 01:41 AM

you need to stop reading infowars for a little while and get a handle on the real world that the rest of us live in.

but casek thinks HIS world is the REAL world and not yours, so visualize it as two different dimentions, you are like that and nothing will change you and other people is like them and nothing will change them, unless they are good people at the "heart" (or soul) and then they are guided towards the truth...

you are not and dont give your opinion about anything related to sex,birth control,family,kids,women(sluts yes but not here),or love.

look at your signature!

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 02:53 AM

holy fucking crap. are you joking?

so lets say there is some grand design. it would be certainly be led by the people who have been in power for centuries, those people being christians. so, if those christians were using abortion to develop their "master race" wouldnt they be supporting abortion? opening clinics that dont condemn women for seeking an abortion? things of that nature? maybe planned parenthood is some type of puppet organization that only targets faith based abstinence only programs as a front while ushering in the socially inferior through the back door.

seriously dude. you really have to stop with this "abortion is eugenics" shit. if you honestly view things like abortion, birth control and sexual education as some sort of grand exercise in race thinning then you need to stop reading infowars for a little while and get a handle on the real world that the rest of us live in. this garbage is making your 9/11 thread look intelligent.

ps - i was going to get into the whole bill and melinda gates quip but dont even know that i want to dignify that. concern for health and well being does not equal some eugenicist plan. fucking christ man, come on.

i supplied info to back it up

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lEEZXxFPHxo

vanfullofretards

08-23-2007, 04:04 AM

To be honest, I really couldn't care at all if every retarded person was killed. That probably seems very harsh and insensitive but, really, they don't add to or help anyones life.

HEY, lets get back to RON PAUL

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 04:35 AM

To be honest, I really couldn't care at all if every retarded person was killed. That probably seems very harsh and insensitive but, really, they don't add to or help anyones life.

man, those are peoples sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends, etc.
you're part of the problem, time to be a man and stop believing in the sickness
that you have been taught to believe is the right way.

and it's not about mentally or physically handicapped. it's about races, it's about religions,
it's about people who wear glasses, etc.

vanfullofretards

08-23-2007, 04:59 AM

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 05:07 AM

Ok, first off I said that was insensitive. Second, I haven't been "taught" to think mentally retarded people should be killed. Third, every relative will say they love their retarded brother, son etc. but deeeep deeep down they wish he wasn't born. They only add inconveniences to peoples lives, maybe I'm a little too drunk to be talking on this issue. But WTF.. I was talking about retarded people not people who wear glasses..??. Dude you're waaay tooooo deep into these fuckin' theories of yours.

BTW... LETS GET OFF THIS TOPIC!! THIS THREAD IS FOR RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no, way deep down they love them for who they are, not what they were born with.

a real man doesn't think the way you do. and perhaps you are too drunk.

i'll leave it at that.

and yes, eugenics is about people with glasses, people of color, etc.
if you don't know about history, you have no reason to argue or continue arguing because i will blow you out of the water with evidence.

and yeah, let's get back on topic. first good thing you've said.

vanfullofretards

08-23-2007, 05:09 AM

and yeah, let's get back on topic. first good thing you've said.

HEY, come on, give me some more credit than that.

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 05:21 AM

HEY, come on, give me some more credit than that.

ok, fifth good thing you've said all day.

vanfullofretards

08-23-2007, 05:25 AM

^^^Whatever that means bub^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujsjdwv3MZM

boogie hands

08-23-2007, 04:30 PM

but casek thinks HIS world is the REAL world and not yours, so visualize it as two different dimentions, you are like that and nothing will change you and other people is like them and nothing will change them, unless they are good people at the "heart" (or soul) and then they are guided towards the truth...

you are not and dont give your opinion about anything related to sex,birth control,family,kids,women(sluts yes but not here),or love.

look at your signature!

what? im not good at heart? because of my signature (which is a joke) i cant comment on issues in which i am more educated than 99% of people here? im trying to figure out what youre saying here but its hard. you articulate yourself like a teenager.

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 04:40 PM

out of curiosity, what is your educational background?

boogie hands

08-23-2007, 04:53 PM

i supplied info to back it up

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lEEZXxFPHxo

well, at the moment i cant get the video to load but from reading the description it sounds like it mainly focuses on antiquated examples of eugenics which are no longer practiced. as for its current view of "eugenics", again, i think you and many others need to revisit the definition of eugenics which ive posted below.

eu·gen·ics
–noun (used with a singular verbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

from my knowledge and as this definition states, eugenics has always focused on reproduction, whether through sterilization of those deemed undesirable or incestuous practices meant to continue a noble blood line. THIS IS EUGENICS. eugenics is not abortion, eugenics is not advances in medicine, eugenics is not sexual education. improvement in quality of life is not equal to improvements in the qualities of humans....do you get what i am saying in the least? your definition is completely skewed!

boogie hands

08-23-2007, 04:59 PM

out of curiosity, what is your educational background?

not that i think formal education has anything to do with someones level of knowledge (and i would hope you agree) but to humor you, i am a high school graduate. ill probably go back to school at some point but for the time being my mental enrichment comes from reading and surrounding myself intelligent, challenging people.

how about yourself?

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 05:02 PM

well, at the moment i cant get the video to load but from reading the description it sounds like it mainly focuses on antiquated examples of eugenics which are no longer practiced. as for its current view of "eugenics", again, i think you and many others need to revisit the definition of eugenics which ive posted below.

eu·gen·ics
–noun (used with a singular verbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

from my knowledge and as this definition states, eugenics has always focused on reproduction, whether through sterilization of those deemed undesirable or incestuous practices meant to continue a noble blood line. THIS IS EUGENICS. eugenics is not abortion, eugenics is not advances in medicine, eugenics is not sexual education. improvement in quality of life is not equal to improvements in the qualities of humans....do you get what i am saying in the least? your definition is completely skewed!

perhaps you should read this:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11020

http://www.bio.com/industryanalysis/industryanalysis_features.jhtml?cid=ci63609148

the rockefellers, henry ford, ted turner, bill gates, etc. etc. are all very supportive of eugenics.

http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/00-09%20FALL/thehuman.html

http://www.trdd.org/EUGBRE.HTM

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr110203.html

http://watch.pair.com/charter.html

do you honestly want me to go deeper into it? it gets pretty scary.

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 05:04 PM

not that i think formal education has anything to do with someones level of knowledge (and i would hope you agree) but to humor you, i am a high school graduate. ill probably go back to school at some point but for the time being my mental enrichment comes from reading and surrounding myself intelligent, challenging people.

how about yourself?

same and some college. mostly self-educated as far as my career (tech work and some graphic design on the side).

and yes, i do agree. "formal" education these days is a load of shit.

boogie hands

08-23-2007, 05:07 PM

thanks for the links. i was actually going to ask you for some more of your sources. ill take a look at this stuff and get back to you. for now, its back to work....

lord_casek

08-23-2007, 05:08 PM

thanks for the links. i was actually going to ask you for some more of your sources. ill take a look at this stuff and get back to you. for now, its back to work....

no problem, and same here. i've got crap that i don't want to do looming over my shoulder

fermentor666

08-24-2007, 12:12 AM

lord_casek

08-24-2007, 02:46 AM

"Formal education" isn't a load of shit if you actually invest yourself in it, rather than just show up and go through the motions. There's a lot to be learned at college that just cannot be learned in any other setting. Just because the amount of idiots in college is on the rise does not mean that higher education is useless. A degree is not an instant win in any debate, but it definitely grants more credibility, especially a PhD. At the very least, college humbles a person, if they are dedicated to their education. At the worst, it becomes an extension of high school and an excuse to party for four years on mommy and daddy's money.

well, i was speaking of the ward churchills of the world.

fermentor666

08-24-2007, 07:29 AM

It seems/seemed like you are/were talking about higher education in general, but ok.

boogie hands

08-24-2007, 12:42 PM

"Formal education" isn't a load of shit if you actually invest yourself in it, rather than just show up and go through the motions. There's a lot to be learned at college that just cannot be learned in any other setting. Just because the amount of idiots in college is on the rise does not mean that higher education is useless. A degree is not an instant win in any debate, but it definitely grants more credibility, especially a PhD. At the very least, college humbles a person, if they are dedicated to their education. At the worst, it becomes an extension of high school and an excuse to party for four years on mommy and daddy's money.

what i was saying is that i dont think a formal education should ever be used as a yard stick to measure the validity of someones knowledge and opinions. ill probably go to school at some point for educational and professional purposes but in the meantime im not going to sell myself short just because i chose the alternative avenue of self-education

thecoldmidwest

08-24-2007, 05:00 PM

hahahaha

Australians were sent here with nothing and built the country up. Id like to see some americans do the same. (without using slave labour)

You'd like to see America do the same? Last time I checked America is the world biggest super power not Australia.

You think that America became that way because of slaves? hahahha. Slavery was wrong and is an embarrassment in American history. But all slaves did was pick cotton, tobacco, etc. They didn't bring slaves here to be rocket scientists. They brought them here because they where to damn lazy to do manual labor themselves.

And something else that pisses me off and people over look is that slavery was in the south.. Only the south. I'm sick of living in up here in the Land of Lincoln and have blacks bitch to me (they have, my own mom was knocked over by some stupid black bitch and yelling something about slavery at Ohare. Who that fuck knows for what reason, if that's not racism I don't know what is.) about slavery when my ancestors are from Eastern Europe and didn't have anything to do with it. As far as I'm concerned no one up here in the North should have to listen to that. Thats why I hate Jesse Jackson. I belive Bill Cosby would the best black leader out there.

I do however think our police force is fucked up in this country, and they discriminate people all the time and get away with it.. But thats a whole other topic.

As for Hispanics in this country. Learn to speak English. No that does not mean you should forget Spanish and the Hispanic culture. I don't mean that you all should speak in English to one another if your more comfortable with Spanish. What I do mean is that English is the countrys national language. Respect that. That means that you should adjust to this country, not that this country should adjust to you. Signs should ONLY be in English. All the other immigrants who came here from all over the world adjust to it, so should you all.

This country is in very deep shit right now thanks to the Clintons administration globalization policies and every single thing that the bush administration has done...There's too many to even list. If Ron Paul doesn't make the ballot I'm not voting and this great country can say good bye to it's culture, it's rights, and its standard of living. The only jobs that are going to be left here are service jobs that pay minimum wage or close to it...

God save the country.......

lord_casek

08-24-2007, 05:07 PM

well said.

one thing yumone forgot about is that when our forefathers came here, there were no slaves,
and they did build this country up from "nothing". i love the "nothing", though. too bad that the "nothing" (nature) is disappearing.

yumone

08-25-2007, 03:23 AM

yeah i was just having a little muck aorund with casek it wasn't meant to be a real historical debate. I admit the English did a really good job of building up America before the Americans got slaves and immigrants to do the rest!

thecoldmidwest

08-25-2007, 03:35 AM

I admit the English did a really good job of building up America before the Americans got slaves and immigrants to do the rest!
Thats not at all what I was getting at. I was talking about all of the hard working people that came here and made America the super power that it is today. Not just the English.

And again, I still don't see the major impact of the slaves other than making some southerners wealthier.

yumone

08-25-2007, 03:48 AM

thecoldmidwest

08-25-2007, 04:24 AM

it probably lies in the fact that for a long time america made a large proportion of it's gdp on exporting cotton and textiles etc, and also the fact that having a massive slave labour force for agricultural work freed up the rest of the population to work in other industries (kind of like what mexicans do for you today)
"I was talking about all of the hard working people that came here and made America the super power that it is today."- yeha i already mentioned the immigrants
OK, again. America didn't become a superpower because of slave labor in the 18th and 19th centuries. Did it help it? Yes, but wasn't nearly as big of a contributing factor like your trying to make it sound.
For the most part european immigrants from the 19th and 20th century built this country. Thats just the way it is. This is in no way racist, its just the way it was.
The illegal immigrants working here today are taken advantage of, and they themselves are a toll on the country as they do not pay taxes. They take advantage of the school and health care system draining more American money. Am I pissed off at them? No. It's not there falt that its impossible to become a citizen here and get paid at least minimum wage. All they want are better lives.

I as an American am having my standard of living lowered at the same time by this, so I don't see what your getting at.

lord_casek

08-25-2007, 05:24 AM

thecoldmidwest

08-25-2007, 05:38 AM

...Ron Paul for prezz.

I'm off to change the oil in my old car.

yumone

08-25-2007, 05:44 AM

you guys aren't as funny as the english.

i wouldn't talk after watching the American attempt at copying 'The Office', dismal...

lord_casek

08-25-2007, 06:02 AM

i wouldn't talk after watching the American attempt at copying 'The Office', dismal...

oh, no way i'm saying americans are any more funny. the british beat both of us out with monty python and benny hill alone.

fermentor666

08-26-2007, 09:36 AM

what i was saying is that i dont think a formal education should ever be used as a yard stick to measure the validity of someones knowledge and opinions. ill probably go to school at some point for educational and professional purposes but in the meantime im not going to sell myself short just because i chose the alternative avenue of self-education

Well, if a PhD in that one has when relevant to the discussion, I think there is a greater amount of credibility towards one who has relentlessly studied the field. Unless they same something completely retarded, in which case they are either lying or one of those idiots that somehow make it through graduate school while being a moron.

fermentor666

08-26-2007, 09:52 AM

This country is in very deep shit right now thanks to the Clintons administration globalization policies and every single thing that the bush administration has done...There's too many to even list. If Ron Paul doesn't make the ballot I'm not voting and this great country can say good bye to it's culture, it's rights, and its standard of living. The only jobs that are going to be left here are service jobs that pay minimum wage or close to it...

God save the country.......

Globalization has harmed the world in ways, but it also has created goodness, such as creating a world-wide human rights standard, trying to eliminate human rights violations. Globalization CAN also create a world community that helps, such as when many of the great Western and Eastern powers pooled money together to help with the tsunami tragedy in Indonesia . It's also created the horrible spreading of corporations, placing trash like McDonalds' and Kentucky Fried Chickens all over the world that destroy the natural beauty of another culture, and created sweatshops in China or Mexico, for instance the Mattell or Wal-Mart or Nike factories. What Clinton did, exactly, I don't know.

Also, you should vote. Just cause your guy didn't make the ballot, if you believe in this country and want it to continue as a country, you need to exercise your right to vote. There is nothing more stupid than turning down the chance to vote for even if it's to vote for the better of two evils. Not exercising your right to vote is very dumb. That's why people like George Bush won, when 92 million people did not vote, nearly 50% of those eligible (US Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf)). Gore lost by barely a few thousand votes and 49 percent and losing by just one state--although it was actually a coup and Bush still would have won. They were all sitting around either too lazy, too selfish to vote because they didn't like either of the candidates, or too depressed about the how your perfect brand of politics did not make it to the finals. Well get up, swallow your pride, and/or put on a happy face and f'n vote.

angelofdeath

08-26-2007, 01:55 PM

why vote for the lesser of two evils if they are both evil? if given a choice between hitler and stalin, why even vote, and so it is with american politics. most presidential elections are between candidates with a dimes worth of difference between the two. hitler might of been a nazi socialist and stalin might of been a bolshevik socialist but in the end they are both in favor of the empire, killing political dissidents and absolute rule by force. and so it is with american presidents. both parties mainstream are in favor of the empire, imperialism at home and abroad and and promises of bigger government.

what is the difference between hillary clinton and rudy guiliani? really, what are they? both favor large government, both are pro choice, both are for gun control, both are for amnesty for illegal aliens, both are for more of the same in iraq, both are for huge amounts of american capital to be sent overseas for foreign aid, both are pro 'gay' rights, both have sex life scandals in one way or the other. really, what is the point of voting when you will get the same thing anyway? oh, hillary clinton might try to push for socialist healthcare 4 months before rudy pushes for some sort of corporate fascist healthcare. wooopdedooo.

what im concerned about is what candidates are going to be reversing unconstitutional laws. what candidates are in favor of shutting down unconstitutional government largesse. what candidates are against the empire. what candidates dont argue over how much they are gonna not raise taxes to pay for thier increased output programs. im concerned at which candidates want to dismantle the totalitarian bureaucracies on the potomac river that are stripping american citizens of thier rights. im concerned which candidates want to reverse the padilla precedent. im concerned about which candidates want to allow citizens to once again have liberty. to be free.

only one candidate is worth voting for, Ron Paul. i urge everyone to stay home if he isnt nominated. stay home or write him in. dont take part in the political plundering get togethers, known as elections.

yumone

08-26-2007, 02:00 PM

whats wrong with gay rights?

angelofdeath

08-26-2007, 03:33 PM

lord_casek

08-26-2007, 05:25 PM

shocking? or is it?
http://chaosgone-politics.blogspot.com/2007/08/cnn-hosts-shocked-when-republican-guest.html

fermentor666

08-26-2007, 11:07 PM

If you advocate not voting then you advocate destroying the foundation that this country was based upon. If your man or woman does not get nominated and you decide to give up and go home then you should not even be living in this country. In case you forgot, there are also congressional and ballot question elections that happen on the same day.

Of course, if everyone who voted for Ron Paul wound up not voting in the general election, then about 1-3% of the country would not vote, which is nothing compared to the actual percentage of the country that does not vote. Promoting non-participation in a democratic society is absurd and the coward's way out.

The difference between Clinton and Guiliani, both of whom I would not want to see in office, is that if one is elected then legislation by Democrat legislators will have a better chance of passing, and if the other is elected, legislation by Republican legislators will have a better chance of passing. You have whitewashed this fact.

If you don't vote, then as far as I am concerned you have no right to even debate about politics and are a useless member of society. I'm not 100% thrilled about ANY of the candidates, but I will cast my ballot come election day.

lord_casek

08-26-2007, 11:38 PM

fermentor: http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan136.html

yumone

08-27-2007, 02:10 AM

there is no such thing as gay rights any more than there is white rights, black rights, indian rights, straight rights, handicapped rights, etc. group rights are non existent. only individual rights exist.

the only gay rights issue as far as i see it is gay couples having EQUAL rights to straight couples. so it's not an issue of having more or certain specific rights just equal rights. how do you feel aobut that AOD?

fermentor666

08-27-2007, 09:20 AM

fermentor: http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan136.html

That argument was thoroughly unconvincing. There is nothing wrong with voting for a minor candidate, or even voting in a write-in. This is a democracy and you need to participate in it if you want to have a say in it. Crying about it and running away from the problem is not the answer. If you go out there and write-in Ron Paul's name in the presidential election, then I don't have a problem with you debating politics. But if you don't vote because your man doesn't get the nomination, then you lose much credibility in any debate. Giving up makes one a loser.

The other fact is, while the media has a lot to do with promoting a candidate, it does not have the final say. The people have the final say. IF you don't like any of the candidates, go to one of their campaign stops and raise your issues with them. Gather your friends, group together and raise the issues you have, demonstrate even. But fucking vote or get off the bus.

angelofdeath

08-27-2007, 11:16 AM

"
The difference between Clinton and Guiliani, both of whom I would not want to see in office, is that if one is elected then legislation by Democrat legislators will have a better chance of passing, and if the other is elected, legislation by Republican legislators will have a better chance of passing. You have whitewashed this fact."

woopdedoo.
both parties in favor of the empire. no change.
i guess you missed the whole argument. yes, im gonna vote this election. but in a free society you have the option of voting or not. there is no use in voting if the choice is between hillary and rudy. they are the same people. voting is not the end all of everything. it is merely a stage. you have various stages as a citizen. you have the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box. in that order. i think it is probably to late to work within the system, yet to soon to shoot the bastards.

how can the ballot box save you if both candidates are evil? if everyone refused to vote, what would happen? it would smash the very foundations of this corrupt society we live in today. if you want to vote, fine. if you dont, why should these people be rediculed? if the choices of candidates are all evil, then a principled refusal to vote is an option. that way you can say you had no part in the picking of the next dictator.

angelofdeath

08-27-2007, 11:20 AM

"the only gay rights issue as far as i see it is gay couples having EQUAL rights to straight couples. so it's not an issue of having more or certain specific rights just equal rights. how do you feel aobut that AOD?"

i think that is a fine position. however, most people who advocate for certain special 'rights' usually come out for various special priviledges that are in fact not equal with anyone else. i think the ideal scenario would be to not have the govt involved in marriage to begin with.

fermentor666

08-28-2007, 12:07 AM

I didn't miss the point, maybe you did. There are differences between those two candidates, and there are similarities. I shouldn't have to explain how our democracy works to you, but in a nutshell: everyone cannot be happy with the results. It is a flaw, but there is no getting around it.

lord_casek

08-28-2007, 12:22 AM

republic.

vanfullofretards

08-28-2007, 03:46 AM

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/radioStationPictures/images/2003/03/10/ouch!.jpg

angelofdeath

08-28-2007, 11:37 AM

everyone could be somewhat happy with the results if we followed the constitution and the federal government followed itto the tee. then DC would be so small and insignificant and government would be run at local and state levels, people wouldnt be so worried about national politics. national politics shouldnt even exist. all they are supposed to be doing is defending us, and making foreign treaties and regulating trade. not to much else.

but you are right, the republic is dead, we are now a democracy where the majority rules the minority. and this is thought of as a good thing. its not. it wont be long and the democracy will vote away all rights of the people in the name of 'democracy.'

fermentor666

08-29-2007, 02:39 AM

Again, I never said there were no flaws.

yumone

08-29-2007, 04:37 AM

lord_casek

09-09-2007, 01:25 AM

new hampshire debate
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/124528/Ron_Paul_at_the_Fox_Debates.html

fuck that snickering rudy ghouliani.
fuck him and faux news.

Mercer

09-09-2007, 01:39 AM

vanfullofretards

09-10-2007, 03:08 AM

That is quote is crazy over used. That's not even the exact quote btw

lord_casek

09-10-2007, 03:14 AM

That is quote is crazy over used. That's not even the exact quote btw

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

satisfied?

vanfullofretards

09-10-2007, 03:17 AM

I dont care enough to be satisfied.. just lettin peeps know, ya know?

yumone

09-10-2007, 09:56 AM

That is quote is crazy over used. That's not even the exact quote btw

fucking oath some pseudo-intellectual or other posts that quote at least once every 3 days in crossfire

Mercer

09-10-2007, 09:40 PM

I thought I'd stick with tradition.