One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Loki
Page: <<prev 1 ... 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 ... 2590 next>>
May 17, 2014 16:03:40   #
Btfkr wrote:
Gotta hand that one to ya. Once that power is granted it is hell trying to take it away.


A right wing Senator and a left wing Congressman agree, possibly for the very first time. Go figure.
Go to
May 17, 2014 16:02:01   #
Patty wrote:
I cant believe you read his post Loki. He is one of the ones on my "scroll the troll" list.


First thing he ever said that wasn't bullshit.
Go to
May 17, 2014 16:00:44   #
Brian Devon wrote:
*********
If this man were a normal human being he would have a loud alarm system and a barking dog. This old geezer relished the opportunity to exercise his blood lust. He thought he could get away with hunting humans legally.

He guessed wrong. Life in prison without parole? Sounds about right. Life trumps "stuff".


I hope you never have to find out. For the dog's sake.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:58:32   #
3jack wrote:
Maybe you and your friends need to sign up for the Tea Party Newsletter so you can stay on top of things.


Is that where you heard about it? I still say it's some bogus hoax you southpaws made up.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:54:09   #
alabuck wrote:
----------

You should go back and read the Patriot Act. Your daddy, "W" was given those powers years ago. You've such a short memory, or a very selective one.


Did I miss the part where YOUR daddy, "O," was in a crashing hurry to repeal it? He knows a handy piece of tyranny when he sees it. How bad is it? Henry Waxman and Rand Paul agree it's bad.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:41:28   #
Retired669 wrote:
I missed the first 15 minutes but there will be a appeal and probably another trial. When a person is face with a life threating situation you shoot till the person is no longer a threat. He should have never recorded what went on inside the house but outside is good since many others do the same thing.

The kids should have known better but they paid the price for their stupidity and this man may too when all is said and done. Sad situation either way.


God in Heaven. I agree with you. These people who advocate "double taps" and "shot placement" have not been there. You shoot for center mass, and keep shooting. I find it amusing that these "gurus" with their "tactics" are so clueless. I wonder how much of their own advice they could or would follow if they were in immediate, deadly danger with a split second to make a decision and act.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:30:26   #
3jack wrote:
Looks like OAS was a complete bust, according to many news sources. Could it be that the Tea Party fervor of trying to take back the country has been rejected by even the fringed lunatics? Could it be that the same group is finally giving up on a stupid ideology. I'm wondering why you OPP Tea Party posters did not show up to support your main cause. I'm sure you have valid reasons.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/17/operation-american-spring-rallies-lunatics.html


Probably because no one knew about it. I never heard of it, until a couple of you left wing skidmarks started posting about it. Not only that, I don't know anyone who has heard of it. You're SURE it' s not some sort of false flag progressive hoax? This poorly organized, it must have been dreamt up by one of those Occupy whatever types. I suppose you were at a fund raiser for your favorite charity, "Dipshits R Us." By the way, what many news sources?
Go to
Check out topic: I Support..
May 17, 2014 15:23:18   #
Billhuggins wrote:
I am sorry that I can't add to your post. It's right on. Dirty Harry and Pelosi are the dumbest ever to be in Washington. Just think about the quality of voters that put then in office. I think it was the money.


Reid isn't stupid. He is a self-serving, cynical, hypocritical, lying SOB with the moral fiber of a weasel in a chickenhouse, but he isn't stupid. I think Pelosi has imbibed too much of that expensive booze she keeps putting on the taxpayer tab.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:20:34   #
UncleJesse wrote:
And with Rubio signing up for Obamacare last December plus taking the huge subsidy handout for it, will make it even harder to stop this immigration train. Rumor is that a deal has already been made on immigration reform with Boehner. Who knows why he did it?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/rubio-enrolls-family-in-obamacare-exchange/2156339


It's for when he loses his job. He is covering his ass by kissing the proper ones for some job security.
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:09:21   #
clarkwv wrote:
just why was there no quote of how many the U S Government has killed?


Which time?
Go to
May 17, 2014 15:06:32   #
BigMike wrote:
Er...what's Bakuninite?... :oops:

A follower of Mikail Bakunin, who could never decide whether he was a Communist or an Anarchist. I believe he was a Bulgarian. I think he finally settled on Anarchist.
Go to
May 17, 2014 14:16:15   #
jonhatfield wrote:
As Skott stated, the terms are somewhat relative. I prefer the terms "federalist" conservative and anti-federalist idiot radical...in which case the founders were federalist cons and especially Washington/Hamilton/Adams/Madison. Jefferson was somewhat anti-fed and radical and Jackson more so. Lincoln & Grant, fed/con. Wilson, ? FDR started out ? but became fed/con to extreme. Guess what? Truman, Eisenhower, JFK/LBJ, Nixon, Carter all fed & con until Reagan anti-feds took over GOP. Present-day Dems, fed & conservative and present-day GOP anti-fed--and tea party radical and idiot Know-nothing Party parallel. Ultra libs? radical and equally idiot.

That's my take as a Hamiltonian conservative loyalist--which has made me a yellow dog Dem of sorts and OPP misfit. ha. You forgot the Whigs, Loki. Webster, Clay, etc. were fed and conservative. We owe a lot to Hamilton, to Whigs, to Lincoln, to FDR, etc. on the fed-con side but also to Jefferson/Jackson and Reagan on the anti-fed somewhat-radical side. And obviously both parties today have parts of both conservative and liberal strands. My fed vs. anti-fed division doesn't totally equate to conservative vs. liberal, but is another way of understanding American political divisions. In a sense all Americans are liberal to some extent, and all conservative at the same time. Morever, our government is carefully structured for central govt. in decisions and all degrees of parts specifically to the individual level in decisions and choices...so that we are all federalist and anti-federalist at the same time. We need to appreciate the various degrees of conservative and liberal, federalist and anti-federalist that are part of Americanism. It's not all one or another, it's a rich conglomeration. Each enriches the other elements in Americanism.
As Skott stated, the terms are somewhat relative. ... (show quote)


Woodrow Wilson's chief of staff was Edward Mandell House, whom I sometimes think was somehow LBJ's ancestor. House was a committed Communist. The 16th and 17th Amendments, along with the Federal Reserve and the wonderful world of fractional banking all happened on Wilson's watch. Not to mention our entrance into WWI after he got elected on the "He kept us out of war" campaign slogan. If you notice in the Communist manifesto, Among the first planks are a Central Bank, and a "graduated and Progressive Income Tax. Wilson's chief of staff was a committed Communist. Many other world leaders, including Churchhill, considered Wilson an idiot. I maintain that he was the worst president in US history, and I would put LBJ as a strong contender for 2nd place. Historical note; JFK disliked LBJ, and was forced to accept him as a running mate. For that matter, Hubert Humphrey was not that fond of him. Humphrey, the Liberal's Liberal, considered the Gun Control Act of 68, authored by Sen. Dodd Sr, and enthusiastically supported by LBJ, absolutely unConstitutional. That last was some of the historical trivia I'm so fond of. I do not, as some have accused me, believe in anarchy, I am not a Bakuninite. I do believe in far less government, and above all, more accountability in Government.
Go to
May 17, 2014 13:58:19   #
skott wrote:
The problem is both liberal and conservative are comparative terms. The founders were liberal compared to the Torres. They tend to be more conservative compared to modern Americans. During the civil war, which was fought over slavery, the southerners were the conservatives. Lincoln was more liberal. He gave the greatest redistribution of wealth that this country has ever seen. He freed the slaves, without writing a law or congress passing one, he just proclaimed it.


The Tories were by and large not slave owners. As for the Founders, 27 of the original 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slave owners, 9 from Northern States.
Lincoln did not free a single slave. Not one. His "Emancipation Proclamation" of 1863 purported to free slaves in the rebellious Southern states. In reality, it was simply ignored. There was even an exemption for the area around New Orleans, which at that time was under Union control, and contained slave owning Union sympathizers.
You are talking about the Lincoln who stated in his pre-election debate with his opponent, Douglas, that he "in no way favored equality for the Negro." Matter of fact, he stated, trying to avoid war, that he had no intention of abolishing slavery. After hostilities had commenced, he said in a letter to Horace Greeley, then editor of the NY Times, (of "Go west, young man," fame ), that his intent was to preserve the Union. He stated that whether that meant a continuance of slavery, abolishing it, or a partial abolition, he would do whatever necessary.
You might wish to note that while the Proclamation was written in 1863, Slavery was still legal in KY, W VA, MD, and NJ. It remained so until 1865, after Lincoln's death, when the 13th Amendment was ratified.
You may also wish to note that less than 5% of Southern soldiers during the war were slave owners. Robert E Lee, Commander of the Confederate Army, had freed his slaves, whom he only owned by virtue of marriage. He never purchased any, and freed them, sensibly, after making sure they had some way to make a living. Contrast Ulysses S. Grant, Union commander, whose wife owned four slaves until the day the 13th Amendment was ratified, and who said if he had thought the war about slavery, he would have fought for the South.
Go to
May 17, 2014 12:49:21   #
Btfkr wrote:
Pardon my editing, but I just have to remember that one :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Somehow it seemed appropriate. You're welcome.
Go to
May 17, 2014 12:48:17   #
marjorie wrote:
all subscribers Interesting to note all the jibber jabber but nothing of consequence on either side. I will always take the stand for our CONSTITUTION not some law made from a bureaucratic policy statement. One of our fore fathers had a statement as to our country and constitution. Do you know that FORE FATHER and his STATEMENT? We are very close to seeing this country being shoveled down the drain of no return.


We have had millions of forefathers. To which do you refer?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 ... 2590 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.