One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Yankee Clipper
Page: <<prev 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 152 next>>
Mar 22, 2013 01:26:11   #
There dammed sure ain't no s**t about it!
I really feel there is a revolution on the horizon.

Let's pray that's not so, but I fear you are right.
Go to
Mar 22, 2013 01:23:30   #
TheChardo wrote:
Yankee Clipper wrote:
jpselden wrote:
Dear "Voice of Reason" I suggest you get another user name. Either rebut his assertions reasonably or at least admit you are a sophist.


Sophist: 3rd definition in my dictionary. "a captious or fallacious reasoner"

Captious: 1: calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument 2: marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections

I didn't see the use of "captious" in voice of reason's response. however, I contend that Che Chardo used captious remarks in his self proclaimed rant that started this discussion topic.

Fallacious: 1: embodying a fallacy 2: tending to decieve or mislead: Delusive

I did not see anything fallacious about voice of reason's comment either. Again Che Chardo's discussion topic is full of fallacious statements, half t***hs and some fact. It is in fact an opinion piece written by Che for Che and anyone else dumb enough to buy a load of Marxist fertilizer.

I did like you choice of "sophist" it is a fine definition of Marxists, Che Chardo, and a possible a self definition because of your misuse of the term fallacious in the definition of sophist.

What do you think?
quote=jpselden Dear "Voice of Reason" I... (show quote)


I used numerous and specific example to make my case...tell me if you can which ones are captious or fallacious. Thank you
quote=Yankee Clipper quote=jpselden Dear "V... (show quote)


Che Chardo, far be it for you to seek to impugn any ones intelligence, no not you! Never!

jpshelden used the word "sophist" to criticize Voice of Reason, but I think your entire piece fits the very definition of "sophist".

Che: "However, when I make a point or take a position I make every effort to back it up with objectively researched documentation... Rarely does anyone respond directly to points that I try to make."

Your points are all over the map, not related to each other and with no documentation to back any of them up.

Che: "As always , I welcome comments, rebuttals and death threats. Thank you for being offended".

You did this piece to cause conservative outrage but your writing style leads more to confusion than outrage. I will quote what both Marxists and conservatives on another site say to all contributors, "sources and links please or get off the site".

I'm not a perfect writer either, but I try to keep my paragraphs uniform as to content. I know I can be confusing too at times but not for the purpose of obfuscation. You never meant for anyone to rebut or provide death threats, you meant only to confuse and incite rage from detractors.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 23:25:19   #
kattaustin wrote:
I must agree with you on this topic. After all why else would Home security want to stockpile 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition? They wouldnt unless they are expecting civil unrest from all us ”patriotic terrorists.” They know the majority of us will not give our guns up quietly. Also you have to factor in the evidence of Fema camps that are already waoting for those so¬called terrorists.


More and more people are figuring this out. I am starting to see information on how to counter military troops and maneuvers. Someone has already come up with counter measures for drones, so I believe a patriot citizens army (m*****as) could have a good chance of winning. Besides any law enforcement, National Guard units taking action against fellow citizens would find their homes and families wiped out within hours of taking unconstitutional actions against the local citizens. As Constitutional patriots we do not want violence because nothing good will come from it. There will only be losers, no winners.

Pray for a peaceful resolution to our current situation.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 22:52:28   #
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
Robert A. Heinlein put it another way. "Put not thy faith in Princes. Princes do not work and therefor must steal for a living."


Very good!
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 19:14:57   #
I hope you are still comfortable with your choice of Gary Johnson. Depending what state you are from it may not have influence the e******n one way or the other. Romney was not my choice either, but I felt he was better than the usurper in chief, but not enough of us felt that way.

Who do you think would make a good p**********l candidate for the GOP and have a chance of winning? It's early, but I like Cruz right now. Rubio is not eligible according to Article 2 of the Constitution. Rand Paul maybe, I like some things he says. Not sure about his position on immigration. I say if they're here illegally round them up and ship them back and seal the border so they can't get back easily.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 19:01:06   #
Just for you John Galt:

A poem written by Martin Niemoeller.

First they came for the C*******ts but I was not a C*******t so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

This was written about the N**i's, however the sentiment fits todays scenario pretty closely. Just change the names.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 18:54:55   #
WhoIsJohnGalt wrote:
You are not on your own, Yankee Clipper. I fully expect our government to start putting Christians and practising Jews into camps out in the deserts of the continental United States. They will start with the smaller, less well known sects like the Jehovia's Witnesses, or the Pentecostals. If they can succeed at that, they will start with the adherents of the more mainstream religions, such as the Baptists. Eventually, they will imprison anyone of any religious belief, save possibly the Muslims.

Many will see this and declare me a madman, but their behaviour is strongly indicative of their ill will for religious people. Whenever they feel free to be rude to you for your religion, you are in trouble. The mob is ever present and seldom has more than a tissue thin veneer of civilization to hold it back from becoming murderous.
You are not on your own, Yankee Clipper. I fully e... (show quote)


John Galt: Thanks, and I know I am not alone, just as I know I will not go along. More and more people are seeing what you and I are seeing and do not think we are crazy even though some would like to paint us that way. I have been verbally warned once for my comments on various blogs, it seems the usurper is a bit thin skinned. So I know I am on a list of patriot terrorists, I believe I am pretty low on the list, but there none the less. I have compared notes with others who have been contacted and to the person they say they will go down resisting. They will never get me to a re-education camp/gulag from which no one will ever see me again. I personally pray for a more peaceful resolution to our predicament, but don't see it in the cards.

My wife and I have had a discussion concerning possible events coming to a home near us. I have told her when they come, they will k**l both of us and our pets too. And most likely they will burn the place down to cover their tracks. Now that's a worst case scenario that I hope doesn't happen. I see no reason they should mess with my wife and my pets, but the can't afford two sides to the story can they.

How many do you know who will resist with their lives if necessary? I bet more than a couple.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 16:03:38   #
This will give you Marxist members a shot at me, it will be interesting to see and read.

This is a letter I sent to my senator expressing my concerns of the possible use of the military and various other government agencies against the civilian population of this nation. I trust neither political party or the government at this point, I believe they are all corrupted by Marxist and Marxism to the point of violent revolution to complete their t***sformation of this nation. I pray every day that such a scenario does not play out in real life. This was sent a year or so ago and things seem worse now than then.

Senator xxxxx xxxxx:

I am concerned about Obama wanting to use the military and various other government agencies including the Dept. of Homeland Security to chill political speech. I am particularly concerned because a blind man can see him and his Marxist administration lying as they call Americans protesting their policies d******c t*******t. They are now training our military to attack, imprison, and/or k**l political protestors of the Marxist Obama agenda.

My question is, are you aware of such actions and if not, why not? It is the conservative constituency who has elected you to office who are in danger under these policies. You and I know these people are not proponents of violent o*******w of the nation. Quite to the contrary, they propose NON VIOLENT, i.e. e******ns to change the direction of our government. If you do not take this issue seriously and look into it, I will consider you part of the problem and start a search for your replacement.

If those of us who are protesting are fired upon by government agents or the military for political purposes, there will be hell to pay. There are more of us than there are of them and we don't want an Iraq type of war against our military and government here do we? Open violence may not be far away and I do not know wish for it in any manner. In fact, I pray for a peaceful solution, but fear the Marxist regime we live under is looking for the excuse to unleash our own military upon the citizens of this country.

Cordially,


Yankee Clipper
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 14:29:57   #
A grandfather's letter to his granddaughter



Guess you heard that 68% of "the youth v**e" went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them.
I replied with this e-mail: The e******n of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother and other productive wage earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.
What is the economic effect of Obama's e******n on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. By your v**e, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for you car, someone to bring you lunch, etc., call 202-456-1111. That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States. I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door.
It's like this. Those who v**e for the president should consider what the impact of an e******n will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.). What Obama v**ers don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families.
Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.
To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts , write to:
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington , DC 20500
Love you, Lauren, but call the number listed above when you need help. Granddad
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 14:19:11   #
Davy Crockett was a member of Congress not too far removed from the founding fathers, but the important actor in this is his constituent farmer who lectured him on the limits of the Constitution. Particularly government welfare. It's too bad it's so long, but it is a good read especially for the Marxists members of this site.

Col. Davy Crockett on Government Welfare


[COMMENT: This is one of the best pieces on government welfare around. Read it well. See also comments on Athens and democracy. E. Fox]


One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a v**e when Colonel David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot v**e for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed and as, no doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few v**es and was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.
"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced, appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the e******n, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the e******n was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.
"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and v**ed for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out e******neering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not v**e for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a v**e last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine.
"'I will say to you what, but for my rudeness I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"I said, 'I admit the t***h of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any v**e last winter upon any Constitutional question.'
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you v**ed for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how many thousands are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.
"'If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
"'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
"'The Congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot v**e for you.'
"NOT YOURS TO GIVE"
"I tell you, I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
"'If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that v**e; and if you will forgive me and v**e for me again, if I ever v**e for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your v**e was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this v**e, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only v**e for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and, to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"'Well, I will be here. But, one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.
"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a v**e.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted-at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"'Fellow citizens, I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to t***hs which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your v**es. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will v**e for me is a matter for your consideration.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my v**e for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, it remains for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up on the stand and said:
"'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have made as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 13:13:35   #
grazeem wrote:
Yankee:

I don't have a clue, about the 16th ammendment. It does seem that if it weren't right, it would have been challanged long before this.


I guess there are a few of us at least who will need to do some research into the passage of the 16th Amendment. I know I don't know enough to accurately comment on it.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 12:18:19   #
jpselden wrote:
Dear "Voice of Reason" I suggest you get another user name. Either rebut his assertions reasonably or at least admit you are a sophist.


Sophist: 3rd definition in my dictionary. "a captious or fallacious reasoner"

Captious: 1: calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument 2: marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections

I didn't see the use of "captious" in voice of reason's response. however, I contend that Che Chardo used captious remarks in his self proclaimed rant that started this discussion topic.

Fallacious: 1: embodying a fallacy 2: tending to decieve or mislead: Delusive

I did not see anything fallacious about voice of reason's comment either. Again Che Chardo's discussion topic is full of fallacious statements, half t***hs and some fact. It is in fact an opinion piece written by Che for Che and anyone else dumb enough to buy a load of Marxist fertilizer.

I did like you choice of "sophist" it is a fine definition of Marxists, Che Chardo, and a possible a self definition because of your misuse of the term fallacious in the definition of sophist.

What do you think?
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 11:04:39   #
Walter Williams: "Wh**ever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another." We need to keep the size of the federal government under control because it just continues to feed on the citizens.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 09:52:33   #
Tasine wrote:
grazeem wrote:
What about the 16th ammendment?


I think it is a bad amendment. I doubt its legality, and I am SURE it defies the US Constitution. SCOTUS may disagree with me, but then SCOTUS is often wrong.

As I stated in an earlier comment, I need to look into the 16th Amendment.

If I earned my money, it is mine. If the government needs some to provide something for needy Americans, they can ask me for some money and I'll give it. However, when they extract it from me at the point of a gun and threat of jail, I need to have an explanation as to how this squares with the US Constitution.
quote=grazeem What about the 16th ammendment? /qu... (show quote)


No where in the Constitution does it say anything about government charity. However over the years polititcians have used such unconstitutional "charity" to by v**es.

You know there is a movement on to starve the government's cash flow by taking the maximum number of dependents and paying the correct taxes when they come due. There are some who think withholding your taxes is illegal too.

This statement is not r****t, but instead is an example of stupidity, look at most of the major cities in this country, who controlls them? Marxist black corrupt politicians who learned the trade well, from Marxist white corrupt politicians. Color or race has nothing to do with such politicians, crooks are crooks. But what I don't understand is why b****s who are as intelligent overall as any other race continually v**e for these guys who they know are corrupt. One has to ask the question, is it just because they are black? Because these cities have destroyed their tax base the American tax payer nation wide is forced to prop up such cities along with their corrupt Marxist system of government. Again unconstitutional charity, which is not in the Constitution. Sad. It's part of the Saul Alinski andCloward/Piven stategy to destroy our form of government.
Go to
Mar 21, 2013 01:24:35   #
[quote=grazeem]Yankee:

That was kind of interesting.

I have one question, don't you think the 16th ammendment was legal?

I have heard that it was done in at best a questionable way, I need to look at it more thoroughly. I may do that in the near future. What do you think?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 152 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.