One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: MatthewlovesAyn
Page: <<prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 next>>
Nov 4, 2015 14:51:12   #
eagleye13 wrote:
Yep.
Ronnie was surrounded by CFR also.
He had to cut a deal with David Rockefeller to be allowed to get the Republican nomination. CFR Bush as his VP was one of Ronnie's concessions.


I really think you are giving Jimmah too much credit. I don't think he was evil, I think he was incompetent.
Go to
Nov 4, 2015 11:46:43   #
eagleye13 wrote:
Jimmy Carter was put in office by the Bilderberger banking cabal.
"Jimmah gave us Paul Volcker." Paul Volcker is Bilderberger.
Carter was made a founding member of the Trilateral Commission; groomed by Zbig Brzezinski for David Rockefeller. ZB became JC's chief foreign policy "adviser".
A puppet of the highest order.


The Real Jimmy Carter
From ‘The Anti New York Times’
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001fE4OY3w7nwI95jEwDaYkk2TOalky7GJR24IpoZoLjJ9wcabP-4rg-SAI4qLeX8CQVY18iRvGa1SacI3nddYG5atj7kGL2Z6b6NI0mNJ404ueg9Vwc2Fi8nE-WO8_6huRKsP1rPNrec4ZWfGhKt_dRBw820dxBvhOFWSAGigQMl1xgkjcgFgoH7R-FP2l5jpn8jdshVbtRQc=&c=P1wkOJyZYqTXMeOsgo9a17SCs_QjT8lNTKbKe-eY5YfDwmnoMlhSCw==&ch=z-1SlIcpoZ7bOaVEiYDpxHTZBXFte3qp-V9aZvWv_QJmN1nhysfktQ==
Though there have been Presidents more evil than Jimmy Carter, perhaps none was more of a phony. That's because the cunning Carter, more so than any other White House scoundrel of the past century, built his political career by cynically promoting himself as a pious "born again" Christian - a simple "peanut farmer" who came out of nowhere to heal the post-Nixon wounds. Nothing could have been further from the truth than this carefully crafted facade. For that reason, we here at The Anti-New York Times have no qualms about re-exposing this almost forgotten degenerate con-man from the 1970's. Carter's treatable cancer - announced with great fanfare by the pathological attention-seeker himself - is his problem, not ours.

Shortly after founding the Trilateral Commission in 1973, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the diabolical right-hand man of Globalist King-Maker David Rockefeller, recruited Jimmy Carter, the nationally unknown Governor of Georgia, for membership in the elite Globalist group. By early 1976, Carter - the simple peanut farmer and "outsider" who came out of nowhere - was rocketed to victory after victory in Democrat Presidential Primaries. He went on to unseat Gerald Ford (also a Trilateralist) to become the 39th President of the United States.

Carter stacked his administration with Trilateralists, tapping his handler Brzezinski for the position of National Security Adviser. His one-term record of failure and destruction has since been whitewashed and forgotten by many. Time for a brief review of some of the more memorable "mistakes":

• Carter & Brzezinski pressured the White government of once prosperous Rhodesia to step aside and allow Communist thug Robert Mugabe to be elected President. Mugabe's motto was "one man, one vote" -- to which we can now add, "one time" because he is still the undisputed master of what is now known as Zimbabwe. The wretched land has since experienced the brutal oppression of White farmers (those foolish enough to have stayed), hyperinfation, crime waves, widespread hunger, soul-crushing poverty and a flight of desperate Blacks to South Africa.
• Carter allowed Cuban Communist Fidel Castro to dump his criminals and mental patients in Florida in what was known as the Mariel Boat Lift. The escapees all claimed to be "political refugees", and many were indeed, but the subsequent crime wave indicated that plenty of scum was also being pumped into Carter's America. (Think 'Tony Montana' of 'Scarface')
• Though Carter inherited a poor economic situation, Carter stubbornly refused to cut tax rates "on the rich" (as even liberal Keynesians recommend during recessions). The stifling and capital-killing top marginal rate of 70% would be finally be slashed to 28% after Ronald Reagan ousted Carter in the 1980 election.

• Carter & Brzezinski created a proxy army in Afghanistan and deliberately provoked the 1979 Soviet invasion by staging a CIA coup in what had been a "non-aligned" country on Russia's Asian border (much like today's Ukraine)! Though the long and drawn out "Afghan Trap" contributed to the ultimate demise and break-up of the USSR, Carter & Brzezinski were not at all motivated by "anti-communism". They sought to destroy and destabilize Russia so that it could be swallowed up into the New World Order.
• After deliberately engineering the Soviet War in Afghanistan, (a fact which Brzezinski has since admitted to!) Carter ruined the 1980 Moscow Olympics by organizing a boycott. Sixty five nations accepted Carter's request, demand to boycott Moscow. The hopes and dreams of 1000's of athletes were thus cruelly sacrificed on the altar of NWO geo-politics. Naturally, the Soviets later responded in kind in 1984. The talented Soviet team and those of various allies did not participate in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics - leaving many American medalists with a feeling of empty victory.
• Carter & Brzezinski back-stabbed the America-friendly Nicaraguan government of Nationalist Anastasio Somoza - falsely portrayed by the New York Slimes and the piranha press as a "brutal dictator" and a violator of "human rights". State Department pressure ultimately toppled Somoza and brought the Castro-backed Communist Sandinistas to power.
Carter also established the Department of Education - which has since grown into an $80 Billion per year Marxist monstrosity that serves to dumb down American children while brainwashing them with Communist propaganda and illicit sexuality.

There is so much more dirt to dish out on this cornball back-stabbing, coup-plotting, suddenly pro-abortion, suddenly pro-homosexual marriage, secret war-making "born-again Christian" One Worlder hypocrite who, while running for President, gave an interview to pornographic Playboy magazine. We have his phony act of wearing a sweater in the White House to "do his part" to keep energy prices down (here); the empty luggage he would personally carry on and off of Air Force 1 just to show the TV boobs of America what a "regular guy" he was (here); his bizarre tale of being chased by a swimming attack-rabbit (here); his snobbish & disdainful abuse of Secret Service agents (here); his creepy confession to committing "adultery of the heart" (here); and other weird stuff that your then-teenage reporter has since forgotten about, and that Sulzberger's Slimes won't ever publish. The one-term Carter Freak Show ended with the landslide election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Though Carter's own record worked against him, the Israel / Neo-Con gang also had the knives out for him. You see, as a pure Globalist of the Soros-Brzezinski wing of the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) Carter attempted to get Israel to tone down its lunatic act - a problem which has always complicated efforts to advance the New World Order agenda, especially in Arab states. Carter's phony and well-publicised "compassion" for the Palestinians should therefore be viewed through the prism of the Globalism vs. Zionism 'in-the-family' rivalry - nothing more.
If and when this Globalist goof-ball dies, expect a major national Freak Show replete with State Funeral and mushy speeches about Carter's home-building act for "Habitat for Humanity". But rest assured, there will be no tears shed here at The Anti-New York Times.
Jimmy Carter was put in office by the Bilderberger... (show quote)


Wow! Every once in a while, I like to slip on my tin foil hat and go to YouTube for a healthy bowl of conspiracy theory. It looks like the Anti-New York Times has done some plagiarizing of Alex Jones. Anyone that wants to keep Ron Reagan on that capitalist genius pedestal, had better silently praise Paul Volcker for the monetary policy Ronnie so heartily embraced. Remember, Ronnie re-appointed him!
Go to
Nov 4, 2015 10:21:24   #
Amazing that Mr. Goldberg could get through his whole diatribe about the Republican primary race and not just downplay, but not even MENTION the front-runner. There is a tinge of fear about Dr. Carson and his evangelical leanings, but darn it, he truly seems like a decent, honest man. Could the country take four years of a good person in the White House? The last time that happened, the country went to hell in a hand-basket (Jimmah Cahtah), but Jimmah gave us Paul Volcker.
Go to
Nov 1, 2015 10:04:30   #
I just want to write for a moment about the most quiet, yet prejudiced against group in the world. I am a member. We are called gauche, sinister, awkward, or clumsy. Tools are designed to make it difficult for us to use. We make up over 10% of the population, but we are not allowed to play 2nd base, shortstop, third or catch. Why not Catcher? Most teachers in elementary schools are too stupid to teach us, and as late as 50 years ago, forced us into the unnatural. In addition to you white males being racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, we can now add handist. I hate all right handed people (except my mom)!
Go to
Oct 30, 2015 14:10:41   #
moldyoldy wrote:
I agree with Bernie on most things. We never win with trade bills, the banks always screw the little guy, we can not deport millions of people, besides we need them to pay into social security, and stop the politicians from stealing SS money. The GOP has made socialism a dirty word, even though it has always been a part of democracy. Fear is generated around buzz worde like socialism, liberalism, and all the other isms, so people react instead of thinking.


The GOP made socialism a dirty word because it IS a dirty word. So is democracy. Socialism is nothing but shared misery. No man works for his neighbor like he will for his family and himself. Why would he? I don't know you nor do I care about you. What makes you think I want to give you the fruits of my labor? What makes you think I want to steal yours? A socialist is nothing but a thief, pure and simple. They shroud their theft is flowery phrases like "social justice" or "equal rights" or "women's rights" or call those who don't wish to be stolen from "racist" or "bigot" or "homophobe". Democracy (as I have said before) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
This country was never intended to be set up as a democracy, with 50% plus one vote stealing from 50% minus one vote. Moldy, I suggest you run, not walk to your nearest Books a Million and buy a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" for a complete explanation of all the flaws in your philosophical bent. While you're at it, pick up some Alexis de Tocqueville to show you why this country is great.
Go to
Oct 27, 2015 08:04:53   #
Richard94611 wrote:
Here is the text of a message I received from Dianne Feinstein in response to my urging that the gun laws be tightened (not that guns be taken away) and that gun ownership be much more greatly controlled, so the crazies out there don't go wandering into schools and shooting up students and teachers. And don't tell me that these crazies are not a problem. I have spent a number of hours several times on the floor in my classroom, along with twenty or thirty students, because someone with a gun was on school grounds or in the school building with one or more guns.

Dear Richard:

Thank you for writing to express your support for legislation to prevent gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you on this important topic, and welcome the opportunity to provide you with an update on the work I have been doing in the Senate to promote gun safety legislation.

I share your outrage about the seemingly endless litany of massacres committed in the United States each year as a result of easy access to firearms by criminals, mentally ill individuals, and others who seek to cause harm. From the murder of 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 to the ongoing gang epidemic in our nation's cities, more must be done to stop these senseless acts of gun violence.

I have long supported measures to strengthen federal gun laws. I sponsored the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress passed into law in 1994. Unfortunately, the ban was allowed to expire in September 2004, despite my efforts to renew it in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, in which the shooter used a Bushmaster 223 assault rifle, I introduced the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" (S. 150) to again reinstate the ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. I offered the bill as an amendment (SA 711) to the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013" (S. 649). Unfortunately, despite strong public support for the ban, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 40-60 on April 17, 2013.

I also supported an amendment (SA 715) to the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013" introduced by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), which would have expanded background checks for firearm sales. Currently, a buyer is not required to undergo a background check when purchasing a gun from a private individual, including at a gun show or over the Internet. This amendment was not agreed to by a vote of 54-46, as the threat of filibuster required it to receive 60 votes to be adopted.

You may be interested to know that, in the current Congress, I am the lead cosponsor of the "Gun Violence Intervention Act" (S.1977), which Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced on August 5, 2015. The bill would allow a family member or close associate of a dangerous individual to apply for an order prohibiting that individual from possessing a firearm. Under this legislation, if the dangerous individual has a firearm in his possession, the court would issue a warrant ordering the temporary seizure of all firearms owned by the individual. Additionally, the bill would require that, whenever law enforcement conducts a wellness check on an individual, officers check whether any firearms or ammunition are registered to the individual, if a state maintains such databases. The "Gun Violence Intervention Act" has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

I also support efforts to improve the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to make it more difficult for individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, such as felons and domestic abusers, to access guns.

Please know I greatly appreciate your support for strengthening our nation's gun laws, and will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider gun safety legislation in the future.

Again, thank you for writing. Your continued involvement in gun safety issues is critical to our success. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Here is the text of a message I received from Dian... (show quote)



I don't know who said this, so I can't credit it. I just agree:
"We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

Funny how that works.
Go to
Oct 21, 2015 14:21:50   #
Jerry A. wrote:
Tasine: Cowards need military weapons to defend themselves, I own 3 guns, a Marlin 22 rifle, a Remington shotgun, and a Browning target pistol (registered), I don't need military automatic weapons like the one used to kill people in movies and shopping centers by crazy people. I have my freedom with guns or without guns.


Jerry: Why do you own guns? Do you hunt? Are they for protection from thugs? Why would someone trying to defend themselves go out and shoot up a movie theater? Do you know the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. Did you know the second amendment is there to let you and others protect you from the GOVERNMENT, not to let you kill Bambi or protect you from criminals? Did you know the vast majority of gun homicides are not done with the use of military weapons? Did you know you are not allowed to own military style automatic rifles and that none of the crimes you mention were perpetrated with their use?

According to Wikipedia:
According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. in 2010.[10] The FBI breaks down the gun-related homicides in 2010 by weapon: 6,009 involved a handgun, 358 involved a rifle, and 1,939 involved an unspecified type of firearm.[11] In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the U.S. were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[29].

Jerry, I'm afraid your ignorance of the whole handgun issue, its' history, and the philosophy behind the second amendment bode poorly for your arguments.
Go to
Oct 21, 2015 08:15:38   #
VladimirPee wrote:
I do support the Constitution and that is why I would ONLY accept gun control done using the method given to us by the founders. Amending the Constitution. When someone like Hillary claims she will unilaterally override the Constitution on this and other issues it makes my skin crawl. Dictators are one reason the amendment exists


I don't understand why this is even a question. The Second Amendment is there to keep a tyrannical government in check. I believe that any weapon the government has should be legal in the hands of a citizen. Now I know many of you think an A-bomb in my hands would be absolutely insane, right? Well, 50% Plus one vote of you readers put thousands of atomic bombs in the hands of Barack Obama. Now who's crazy? I wouldn't mind having a couple drones flying around my house for personal protection too. When the Constitution was written, the government had cannons and muskets, each of which was attainable by the citizenry. The force of the US armed services makes defense against them impossible, but if they come to take my guns, they better remember, I have guns.
Go to
Oct 17, 2015 10:02:01   #
vernon wrote:
he ignores any statement that dosent agree with him.


I thought maybe he was from California and hadn't woken up yet, or maybe he didn't have a job and was on the government dole and didn't HAVE to wake up.

It is rather irritating that he invited debate, then didn't respond. :thumbdown:
Go to
Oct 17, 2015 08:39:19   #
tdsrnest, I'm still waiting.
Go to
Oct 17, 2015 07:48:29   #
oz89 wrote:
Why do you just use unskilled black people in your post there are unskilled people in every group?


Because they are the ones who were originally targeted for the ugly discrimination of the minimum wage.
Okay?
Ya know, I was going to let it go at that, but now I think you have pissed me off. What you did was try to paint me as a racist. You don't know a single thing about me, unless you happened to look at my profile. And that doesn't say much. It is typical of people to insult as opposed to comment or argue philosophically. My post virtually explained why I used black youth as an example, yet the only thing you saw that I wrote was, "unskilled black youth."
The fact of the matter is, I don't give a crap about unskilled black youth except as a matter of justice. If you write laws discriminating against one group, it adversely affects everyone. In this case, it raised the price of labor artificially and put potentially hard working, productive, motivated people on the street. It also gave the government the impetus to give those people my money for not working. Crazy, huh? Almost everything the government does is crazy, unconstitutional, and counter-productive. Now, I know the typical answer to that is the interstate highway system. The question, however, should be, "What would have happened if it hadn't been created?". Well, for one thing, the rail system wouldn't have gone broke. States would have had to cooperate with one another to develop a workable highway system, and we wouldn't have had the federal government dictating the drinking age by holding a gun to our head and ransoming us with highway money. There are other adverse and unintended consequences to the federal highway system. Do a little reading.
People doing for themselves in cooperation with others is the only civilized course of action. If I could put my car on a train that went 300 miles an hour and take it to Florida while sitting in the comfort of a coach whose price was dictated by the free market, I would do that instead of driving or flying. But the government stole my money and gave it to people to build airports and highways, making my preferred method of travel unfeasible. It is time for everyone to think about the consequences of the actions the government takes. They are almost always bad.
Go to
Oct 16, 2015 18:23:06   #
tdsrnest wrote:
We all took away many different things from the 1st democratic debate. For example the democrats discussed saving our environment, republicans just deny and say there not scientist and allow the oil industry spread denial of climate change. Democrats Close private prisons republicans avoid this because they know there wrong and it would destroy there corporate elite agenda. And piss off the super PAC ALEC don't want to get those money people mad. Don't want to interrupt there advancing income an equality got to get the money to the top 1% so we the middle class can watch it trickle down. So GOP when will the trickle begin we have been waiting since Reagan created trickle down.

Democrats Regulate Wall Street, republicans have been spreading there propaganda that we need to go back to the golden years of Bush 43 wow please get us back to Bush 10% unemployment , 5 million people foreclosed on, two phony wars, please get us back to those days I guess a recession was not golden enough we need the GOP depression to be really golden.

Democrats address gun violence GOP not a chance they just continue to spread there propaganda that liberals are out to take there guns even though not one bill has been ever and I mean never sponsored by any liberal to take anybodies guns away except for mentally handicapped and felons. Liberals are just trying to get congress to discuss gun violence in our schools and society but the GOP loves to spread there propaganda put out by the NRA that it violates there constitutional right to own a gun. Has anybody ever heard the NRA say anything about the victims except it was not the gun that kills it's the bad guy holding the gun but still the GOP rejects anything that might help to save a kid in a classroom. Do these kids being murdered in a classroom have any constitutional rights I guess not according to the NRA and the GOP.

Democrats want to save SS the GOP wants to privatize and turn our money over to the corporate elite guess it further advances the GOP to push more money to the top 1% and wait for the big scam of trickle down. The GOP uses this BS that SS is unsustainable but fail to explain why. Ronald Reagan if you remember created the SS amendment back in the 1980's to take care of baby boomers when they begin to retire. Now think about the Reagan years when the GOP says Reagan never increased taxes on the middle class but he actually created the largest income tax increase in the history of this country through that SS amendment Act. Then took all those funds deposited in the general fund approximately $1.2 trillion was stolen from that fund by Reagan to support his trickle down that never trickled. Then Bush stole an additional $1.4 trillion to support his wealthy tax breaks and phony wars so GOP where is the trickle I am waiting. They need to privatize the SS or they will have to come up with the funds to pay for the baby boomers after all they have been lying by telling us the largest debt holder is China but sorry GOP we know now it's our SS fund that hold the majority of debt.

Giving away free stuff is the GOP talking point but how about billions to oil companies, national parks to the the Koch brothers along with our national forest for Koch brothers to make paper towels to wipe up our oil spills, how about giving away Native American land to foreign mining companies, or a fence to keep out Mexicans, or borrow more money for wars. So with corporate loopholes, subsidies, wars where the hell is the trickle down the upper 1% just gets richer. All we heard at the GOP debates is Emails more emails, Benghazi, Benghazi, and more Benghazi. All I got from the GOP debate is vote for me and look what I will take away from the middle class and hand it over to the corporate elite.

What I learned was the difference between the democratic debate and GOP debate were actual policy was discussed versus GOP fake facts and insults.

Republicans love to hide the fact they spend money then borrow money to support there spending habits on war, and corporate welfare then use a ridiculous talking point that all this spending is because of free stuff to people who need it. Democrats don't know about the impact of freebies to the corporate oil companies, or subsidies because they are not oil companies, or billionaires or defense contractors, all we want is roads, bridges, safe air and water, food to eat, a chance at higher education, a decent min wage, sending our children to school and know they will return home safe, and healthcare. None of which was mentioned in the GOP clown car debate. I just don't think that's to much to ask for when the the GOP spends trillions to murder people in foreign countries, and to justify these actions by saying the Muslims are coming to get you, then corporate welfare all on borrowed money and then blame the deficit on free democratic stuff to buy votes.

SO GOP WHERE IS THE TRICKLE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR 35 YEARS AND ALL I SEE IS A DECLINING MIDDLE CLASS AND THE UPPER 1% GETTING RICHER. BUT I GUESS ITS THE UNIONS FAULT FOR OUR ECONOMY COLLAPSE THATS SEEMS TO BE YOUR FAVORITE.
We all took away many different things from the 1s... (show quote)



Someone along the thread suggested argument over insults, so here we go.
First off, send me your posts for editing as I know the difference between, "There, they're, and their". It doesn't help your argument if it doesn't appear English is your first language.

Second, we don't reject climate change out of hand. We are just skeptical about it being man-made, and even more skeptical about our ability to do anything about it without forcefully reducing world population to well under a billion. We think the agenda of the left is to steal our money with a gun and give it to useless scientists who share your opinions on things other than global warming (oh, I forgot, it's not called that anymore!).

Three. Private prisons. We think it is insane that both Republicans and Democrats feel the need to incarcerate such a large percentage of the population. Privatized prisons does seem like an oxymoron, but I have never seen ANYTHING the government does better than the private sector, except wage war. The government is good at killing people and breaking things. Little else, I'm afraid.

Four. Trickle down. Just how do you think capitalism works? Here's how. A man like Tom Edison has an idea. He works his fingers to the bone perfecting it. He asks people to put some of the money they have saved into building a facility to manufacture said idea. He doesn't force them by voting to tax them to give him research money. He convinces them of their own free will to INVEST CAPITAL in his idea. He attempts to convince enough people to buy his product to make its' production feasible. If he does, and it's a product they like (like a light bulb instead of a kerosene lamp) he MAKES money. He doesn't steal at the point of a gun. Both he and his investors and the people who purchased the product are happier than before the existence of Tom Edison. That's NOT how government works. In government, 50% plus one vote steals from the other 50% minus one vote at the point of a gun. The example I like to use is the library. In your town, a ballot initiative is sought for a public library. If 50% plus one vote passes the initiative, 100% of the people are taxed so a small proportion of the people can read books for free. Now you have all the people being stolen from at the point of a gun (if you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes) so a few whiners with 'good intentions' can read for free. The author and printer sell less books than they otherwise would, otherwise productive space is stolen, and property value is artificially influenced up or down. No one is happy except those few people getting free WiFi in a 300 foot radius.

Five. W.? really? Very few conservatives are happy with the presidency of 43. We hate war. It's a function of the government that you so love. Less government, less war. That nonsense you passed off about only republicans wanting war is just that. Nonsense. The wars in the ME have been Obama's and the democrats since the day he took office, with both being in his purview to end. 6 and a half years ago.

Six. Guns. There are literally thousands of laws on the books regarding guns. If they were enforced, you might get somewhere. Passing stupid, ineffective laws just to let you say you did something (even though you didn't) is counterproductive. You wouldn't understand that, because you don't understand the function of being productive. I don't initiate force, but if it is initiated against me, I will fight with all my force and fury. If you come to confiscate my guns, you better remember, I have guns.

As you may guess, many of my arguments to your bereft philosophy will follow the same course, so I am only going to pick on one more of your pet peeves. Minimum wage. It's one of the worst, thieving, racist, policies ever foisted on the American people. It was conceived to keep less qualified, yet eager to work blacks from joining the construction trades in New Jersey. It's still racist because it keeps employers from hiring promising yet unskilled blacks at a wage where they can make the employer money. An employer is NOT there to provide jobs. He's there to make money. I hire people. If I have to pay an unskilled black youth $8.00 an hour, or I have the choice of paying some bright young college kid the same amount, which do you think I should do? Now if I could get that black kid for $4.00 (which is what he is worth to me) I just might do it. The left makes it sound like the whole middle class is scraping by on minimum wage. It's a lie. It's about 4% of the work force. The very same portion of the work force that's probably not worth minimum wage. Sorry.
Go to
Oct 12, 2015 08:32:15   #
Workinman wrote:
Perhaps you need to do a little more reading on the subject.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
~Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/what-does-the-second-amendment-really-mean/#SPlfYPomYpkd8u3Z.99


Thanks for the reminder of a great quote. Unfortunately, I AM fearing my government more and more.
Go to
Oct 12, 2015 08:26:52   #
PeterS wrote:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The part of this our conservative friends do not understand is that the right to bare arms is predicated by having a "Well regulated militia" which conservatives, as the whole, reject.

The founders though, saw a freestanding army as an instrument that could be used to repress freedom--thus the need to maintain a well regulated militia that could be used to protect the country when needed. Conservatives though, love a freestanding army and in fact most see it as the only legitimate function of government. It's this conflated function of government driven by the insatiable conservative need to feel protected. Government needs guns to protect conservatives and conservatives need guns to protect themselves from government. It's a cycle of guns that is never ending...
"A well color=red regulated Militia /color ... (show quote)


Apparently you missed that little SCOTUS decision basically saying there is a semi-colon instead of a comma between 'State' and 'the'. Citizens DO have the right to keep and bear arms.
I have a 12 gauge in my basement to shoot rabbits and pheasants (it's pretty dusty) and an AR-15 beside my bed in case some thug like you decides I shouldn't have it.
When the Second Amendment was passed, unfortunately, the government had cannons and muskets. Citizens could be similarly armed. Now, I am just a bug to be squashed beneath a government foot that has atomic bombs. Two things you can depend on, though. I will never initiate force on another, and if someone initiates force on me, I will defend myself. The one thing giving me heart is the feeling that those in the military and police forces feel as I do and would not take arms against the citizenry.
Go to
Oct 12, 2015 07:59:00   #
fiatlux wrote:
Look it up: stricter gun control means less deaths by firearms. Gun Control does not immediately translate to black helicopters and FEMA (or any government agency) swooping in to take away all guns: the argument all gun-advocates use to end discussion. Controls are not infringements but wise regulations that guarantee right use of the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment--far, far more important than the Second--has numerous restrictions that help to promote the spirit of the law.


Methinks you are not taking into account the numbers of people killed by thuggish governments after guns are taken from the populace. 60 million by Mao, 20 million by Stalin, and 11 million by Hitler are presumably just statistics to you as opposed to horrific deaths. It is so frustrating that you have no clue the Second Amendment is there to protect the first.
As far as importance is concerned, the point is moot. All of the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
What I said the other day still holds, " The Second Amendment is there not to let me kill Bambi, or to protect my home against criminals. It is there to protect me from a thuggish government. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible unless I am able to fashion my own atomic bomb. But I hope you and others of your ilk remember when you come to take my guns, I have guns."
Simpletons?
"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Seditious? For wanting to defend constitutional rights? You're kidding, right?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.