One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: boofhead
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79 next>>
Sep 3, 2019 18:33:03   #
More craziness than there used to be in the Wild West. Wonder why that is?
Go to
Sep 3, 2019 12:55:32   #
ACP45 wrote:
No. Sandra Margulies is the appellate judge that wrote the response in the 3-0 decision. She was appointed to the court by Governor Gray Davis on January 25, 2002, and her current term expires on J****** 6, 2019.


So if her term was up 6 months ago her decision in this case must be null and void?
Go to
Sep 1, 2019 15:59:26   #
There are millions of crimes prevented every year by good people using guns (not necessarily firing them or shooting anyone; just by having a gun and using it to prevent a crime). How many of those possible crimes would have resulted in mass death otherwise? How many peoples' lives have been saved already? There is no doubt that if a good guy with a gun had been there the criminal would have been stopped and lives saved. There is no doubt also that because there was not a good guy with a gun available, people died.
Take away the guns from the good people and we have Chicago or LA or any of the Democrat hell-holes covering the entire country.
Did you see the Kate Steinle latest? Does it not make you sick? Is that what you want for your country?
Go to
Apr 26, 2019 19:21:10   #
bahmer wrote:
The Movie Unplanned Gives Insight to Dehumanizing Acts Like Sri Lanka
By Jake MacAulay - April 26, 2019

What do chattel s***ery, the N**i holocaust, global genocide, and the bombings in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday have in common?

By dehumanizing the victims, these horrific acts become tolerable and unobjectionable.

The plantation owner thought the African was not fully human; the N**i thought the Jew was not human; one political faction thought the same of their rival faction; and terrorists believed Christians were undeserving of life, so they murdered them on the day Christians celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Many make the argument that our American political system has taken the same approach to the unborn.

Let me explain.

After taking all of my children to see the movie Unplanned this weekend, we learned about the true underbelly of the murderous, government-funded, billion-dollar global corporation of Planned Parenthood. The movie was told from the life experience of a former clinic director Abby Johnson.

On September 26, 2009, Abby was asked to assist with an ultrasound-guided a******n, where she watched in horror as a 13-week baby fought for, and ultimately lost, its life at the hand of an a******nist. After some 22,000 a******ns as director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, she resigned and became an outspoken advocate for the pro-life movement.

Abby physically witnessed what our American founders recognized and recorded in the Declaration of Independence, that, “All men are created equal.” We are NOT “born equal”; we are “created equal” by our Creator with certain unalienable rights – chiefly life. And we all know every human being is created in the womb of his or her mother.

Benjamin Rush, a Declaration of Independence signer and medical doctor, stated that life’s:

“first motion is produced by the stimulus of the male seed upon the female ovum … No sooner is the female ovum thus set in motion, and the fetus formed, than its capacity of life is supported.”
In the Constitution we find the Framers securing and guaranteeing protection of all life in the Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be deprived of life…without due process of law.”
The Fourteenth Amendment also states:

“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
This applies to every living person, and we know a******n violates this right by k*****g babies before they’re born, let alone before due process.

John Locke, who highly influenced the Founders’ views, extracted from the laws of nature and specified that individuals are:

“not to k**l another man; not to know more women than one; not to procure a******n; not to expose their children; not to take from another what is his …”
The obvious t***h Locke was asserting by stating a******n violates natural law was that a******n did, in fact, violate another human being’s right to life.

A******n is the dehumanization of the unborn. It is murder. A******n is un-American and illegal. Consequently, protecting, committing, funding, or participating in the act is criminal. Period.

Therefore, every elected official in America should repent of this evil they have allowed and fulfill their oath of office to protect the unborn because even unplanned life is still life.
The Movie Unplanned Gives Insight to Dehumanizing ... (show quote)


That is so true. Why do so many not understand? Is our society so depraved?
Go to
Apr 21, 2019 12:19:16   #
Islam cannot coexist with freedom. When Muslims are less than 2% of the population they keep their heads down and cause no trouble. When they exceed this they start demanding privileges such as the right for Sharia, to broadcast the prayers, to agitate for removal of pork, dogs and other items they abhor, then when they reach 10% they move onto direct threats and attacks to take over the host country. This is their plan and it is highly successful. Look at Europe. Look at Minnesota.

(Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of papal authority.)

The Crusades were fought and won but now we are giving up and allowing the "peaceful" invasion to succeed, thanks to the likes of Kevin who believes that this will usher in a better life for us all. A life dictated by Allah, and one that Kevin will find a short one indeed, because he will be target no. 1.
Go to
Feb 9, 2019 15:09:58   #
Kevyn wrote:
Yup, those n**is held Hitlers accomplices accountable for their crimes. Wake up boy, the feds raided the lair of a criminal who is in bed with our Russian adversaries, they injured no one and secured evidence before he could destroy it. It was a textbook opperation.


I used to wonder if what happened in N**i Germany before and during WWII could happen here. Would the citizens of a free and open Republic go along with obvious illegal activity such as the attack on the Stone house, act like thugs and enforce the will of an obviously rogue department such as the FBI (in this case at least)? Or would those agents refuse to follow such obviously illegal orders?

We know what happened in Germany. Now we know it is, and has, happening here too.

If our fellow citizens who carry the guns do not have the courage to say "NO!" then what hope have we?

We cannot count on the rule of law. We cannot count on justice or fairness. We cannot count on the people who are paid to protect us, our laws or way of life. The Jews had to wear a yellow star. What will they put on my shirt?

Get used to it, folks! Kevin and his ilk RULE!
Go to
Jan 12, 2019 12:29:19   #
at41 wrote:
You are aware that Roe vs Wade was decided in a SCOTUS that had a 6 Justices appointed by Republicans and Republican appointed Justices have been in the majority for the last 40 years. Seems the Republicans . the ones who favor a******n


The decision aligned all the States to the same laws. The first trimester was not as tightly constrained as the second two, but it was still not meant to allow a******n for convenience. A women desiring an a******n even in the first trimester had to have the consent of a doctor that it was medially necessary. That is patently not being done with the majority of a******ns being done without a medical reason. Therefore illegally.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down their ruling, holding that a woman's right to an a******n falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to a******n during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating a******n in the second and third trimesters.

In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat a******n only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician.

In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother.

After the viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to survive outside of and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest. The state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe a******n" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.
Go to
Jan 12, 2019 12:16:06   #
I meant that free speech allows me to say anything and believe anything. If I think a child in a womb is a disease and it should be expelled, so long as I do nothing to cause that to happen; I can have that opinion. If I believe that the life of the child is just as important as that of the mother; I can have that opinion too.

Privacy goes out the window when the baby is murdered. The staff at the clinic knows, the doctor knows (and authorized), the family knows (if they care to), the people who profit from the remains of the baby know, those who collect the garbage at the end of the day and throw that poor child's remains away in the dumpster know. What privacy?

I feel for any woman who feels that an a******n is the only option for her; causing the death of a child, even if it is only a fetus at that time, must be heartbreaking. A man cannot understand what that decision takes out of you. I know some women who had a******ns when young and even in their last years still feel terrible about it. Especially if they had no reason for having the a******n other than convenience. And of course PP and other a******n mills are in it for the money so they can be very convincing, seducing a poor girl who is fearful for her future to allow them to rip that little life out of her so they can profit. Is it more evil when the N**is k**led for racial hatred or for those people at the a******n mills to do it for money? Why do I even have to ask that question? Are we all really that depraved?

I also believe that a******n as it is carried out in the US is illegal because Roe v Wade did not make a******n legal, and did not make it legal on demand. All it did was to apply the rules of a******n to the whole country rather than allow each state to make the determination. However the rules for said a******ns included a requirement, even for the first trimester, that the a******n be medically necessary. Most a******ns are, however, patently for the convenience of the mother and not for any medical emergency. I believe (and it is my right to do so) that we should be holding the doctors' feet to the fire and make them show, with a signature, that the a******n was necessary. Maybe if we prosecuted a few of those a******n doctors for lying we could have an impact.
Go to
Jan 12, 2019 11:07:16   #
Pro Choice has no meaning. Is it supposed to suggest that we can be for or against a******n? Of course we do have that right; it is enshrined in the Constitution. One person exercises the right to be pro choice and chooses to stand against a******n. Another chooses to stand for a******n. So what good is the expression "pro choice" if it means nothing?

At least Pro Life has a meaning. A Pro Life supporter wants to protect the life of the baby. Nobody doubts that.

I suggest that instead of Pro Choice we call those people what they really are: Pro Death. Maybe if we show the world what callous and cruel fanatics they are; people who take delight in the suffering and gruesome deaths of the most innocent among us, conceived by accident it seems, and murdered and discarded deliberately just for convenience, some would wake up and we might be able to reduce this infanticide epidemic.
Go to
Jan 10, 2019 14:00:53   #
That's the best you can do?
Go to
Jan 10, 2019 05:03:36   #
when I picture a democrat in my mind I see sharpened teeth and blood coming from the rapacious mouth. Dead eyes and a smile as another innocent baby is torn limb from limb or poisoned or has a pair of scissors thrust up through its brain for no reason other than the convenience of the mother.

How can these people so lack a soul and a conscience as to find a******n to be such a wonderful satisfaction, such a pleasurable act, especially given the pain the baby suffers and the loss of over a million babies every year in this country alone, merely so that a mother, who could have used birth control but did not, does not have the inconvenience of carrying that life, that part of her; a baby who is programmed to love her, to rely on her for protection and support, but instead is k**led while still in the most protected place on Earth; betrayed by its own mother! What could be worse? Who could come up with a more horrifying ending to a life of a baby that might have become not only a comfort and companion to the mother but someone important and welcome to the world if only it had the same chance the mother had.

And given that RvW does not provide for a******n on demand, even in the first trimester, it is a crime and those involved are murderers. Wicked, evil murderers and cowards who will pay for their crimes eventually, either in a mental break down when the true meaning of a******n sinks in, which it will do, or when they face their maker. As their time on this Earth comes to a halt, they will have time to go over what they did and there will be no way they can be excused for their evil and depravity. They should know that I, for one, will never forgive them. They will never know me, but rest assured I know them and detest what they did.


If there is anything that defines a Democrat for me it is this. No matter what there is in a Democrat that has value, no matter how pleasant or helpful or generous or caring they might be, because they support a******n they are dead in my eyes.
Go to
Jan 6, 2019 17:14:45   #
rumitoid wrote:
The argument over whether s***ery was the primary cause of the Civil War is one of the most controversial topics in American history. It is a subject that has been debated since the war first began in 1861.

Evidence That S***ery Was the Cause of the Civil War:

One way to determine the cause of the Civil War, is to examine the primary sources from that period to see if any explicit causes were cited.

The Civil War began after several states seceded from the Union in late 1860 and early 1861. Each state that seceded issued an Article of Secession announcing that they were leaving the Union.

In addition, four states: Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina issued additional documents, known as the Declaration of Causes, that further explained their actions. These declarations discuss two major themes: s***ery and state’s rights.

Georgia’s declaration focuses heavily on s***ery and state’s rights, stating that it refused to be ruled over by an anti-s***ery government:

“Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-s***ery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-s***ery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-s***ery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-s***ery it is made a power in the state. The question of s***ery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.”

Mississippi’s declaration is somewhat more straightforward on the subject when it states: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of s***ery.” The declaration then goes on to say that the state seceded because if it didn’t it would lose its s***es:
“Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.”

South Carolina’s declaration also mentioned state’s rights and suggested the federal government’s actions towards s***ery were a violation of the Constitution:

“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other s***eholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.”

Texas’s declaration also mentions s***ery and states rights but also discusses other grievances with the federal government, accusing it of failing to protect the state from Native American attacks and failing to do enough about Mexican immigration.

Another primary source pertaining to this topic is Abraham Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address. According to the book Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America by Garry Wills, in the speech, Lincoln argues that the Civil War is a battle for equal rights for African-Americans, particularly in his opening line:

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.”

Furthermore, Wills says that this speech eventually paved the way for the 14th amendment, which granted citizenship to former s***es.

Many primary sources of the time back up Wills claims. A number of newspapers picked up on the message of Lincoln’s speech and criticized the president for his bold assertion, such as The Chicago Times, which wrote:

“How dare he, then, standing on their [the soldiers] graves, misstate the cause for which they died, and libel the statesmen who founded the government? They were men possessing too much self-respect to declare that Negroes were their equals, or were entitled to equal privileges.”

However, we don’t know if Lincoln actually felt this way or if he was just hoping to gain support for the Union cause by equating the war with a noble struggle for human rights.

Another famous Civil War-era speech that states s***ery was the cause of the Civil War was the “Cornerstone Speech” by Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Vice President. Stephens spoke in Savannah, Georgia in March of 1861, just weeks before the war officially started, during which he compared the Civil War to the Revolutionary War, in which a band of rebels o*******w a tyrannical government, and said that s***ery was the cause of this new revolution:

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African s***ery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

Another useful primary source on the topic is the memoir of the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, titled The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. In the preface of his memoir, Davis wrote that s***ery, which he referred to as “African servitude,” was one of the main reasons for the Civil War:

“African servitude at that time was not confined to a section, but was numerically greater in the South than in the North, with a tendency to its continuance in the former and cessation in the latter. It therefore thus early presents itself as a disturbing element, and the provisions of the Constitution, which were known to be necessary for its adoption, bound all the states to recognize and protect that species of property. When at a subsequent period there arose in the Northern states an anti-s***ery agitation, it was a harmless and scarcely noticed movement until political demagogues seized upon it as a means to acquire power. Had it been left to pseudo-philanthropists and fanatics, most zealous where least informed, it never could have shaken the foundations of the Union and have incited one section to carry fire and sword to the other.”

Why Was S***ery a Cause of the Civil War?

A common belief is that it was the dispute about the morality of s***ery that caused the southern states to secede but in reality, it was the economic and political issues of s***ery that really played a part in the outbreak of the war.

S***ery was important to the south because the southern economy, which was an agricultural-based economy whose biggest exports were cotton and tobacco, depended on s***es for labor. Southerners argued that ending s***ery would devastate the southern economy.

The southern states wanted to assert their state’s rights over the federal government so they could abolish or ignore federal laws about s***ery that they didn’t support.

In addition, the south wanted s***e states to expand into the west while the north wanted to make western states free states.
Read more here: http://civilwarsaga.com/s***ery-cause-civil-war/

Some more sites: http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war
https://www.nps.gov/shil/learn/historyculture/upload/S***ERY-BROCHURE.pdf
https://3monkswriting.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war-essay-example/
The argument over whether s***ery was the primary ... (show quote)


The first time I visited the US was in 1965 and what I saw then showed me that the general population of the US thought that s***ery was a good idea. Although in fact s***ery had been ended the lives of the black people were not much different from what they had been 100 years before that time. I could not then, and do not now, agree that the average person in the US in 1865 would have put his life on the line for the black part of the population. I hope that this has changed, and the white population of the US would now stand up for the rights of the b****s, as they should for all citizens, no matter the color of their skin. But at the time of the civil war? No.
Go to
Dec 31, 2018 01:52:14   #
Sicilianthing wrote:
Democrats: A plague on the nation
Dec 29, 2018

It should be obvious by now that our progressive left does not have the best interest of Americans at heart.

See the Plague here:
https://americanthinker.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=64b02e9269ba4913b764daf76&id=ac6aa08d54&e=563301fc83


If you have even the barest regard for this country and its future you have to agree with this. If you don't, then you show your true colors as an American H**er. Done and done.
Go to
Nov 19, 2018 10:41:16   #
permafrost wrote:
where do you live???

I pay an extra 15 bucks a month for g***n e****y.. northern Minnesota..

If you are telling the t***h, which i doubt, the board for that elec company needs a hard review.. but as usual, I bet what you say is far from the whole story..


I know the guy who built the windmills, saw them being built, see them every day and when the wind is light they don't turn and when it is too strong they are feathered to prevent damage. Just like windmills everywhere. The increase in the electricity rate was published. Fortunately I am not in the municipal power area so I am not affected but the rates did go up. The electricity authority acknowledges a rate increase of 1.1% due to the requirement to take the windfarm power but I would assume that as is usual, the true cost is greater than that. An audit would show more. Given that the building costs were subsidized, the cost to the community is obviously higher than admitted.

There are many ways to get sustainable power; wind is not one of them, except in specific and small-scale cases. A good idea, but in practice it simply does not work and probably never will.
Go to
Nov 18, 2018 13:59:47   #
Comment wrote:
U stupid i***ts. Wind and solar are highly subsidized by taxpayers. La la la dah dah dah!!!!!!


Where I live they put in a wind farm on an island and the costs of powerlines, t***sformers etc was huge. The builders have a deal with the local power company that forces the power company to buy their electricity, no matter how much they produce, at a premium price. The more the wind farm supplies, the higher the cost to the consumer for all their power needs. If the power company had a choice they would run away from this deal as fast as they could. But of course they don't have a choice and everything is paid for by the gullible public as usual.

At present, and I suspect for quite a while more, the cost of making those windmills, getting them on site, preparing the ground, running the t***smission lines, repairing them, operating them, disposing of them when they reach their end of life, is way more than any savings they might make on the cost of electricity. So far there has not been any savings except in a few small areas where running conventional electricity plants is not feasible or economical due to a small demand, so all those farms you see, sometimes turning, sometimes not, surrounded by dead birds and bats and the occasional dead crop duster or helicopter pilot, are a negative so far as the economy and the environment is concerned, and that is before you also consider that a conventional plant must always be running in case the wind stops so I would posit that wind power will NEVER be a better choice especially for large power needs and I also promise that it will Always put up the cost of energy for all of us.

Another s**m. Pity we are all so gullible.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.