angelofdeath

These weren't written for "gay marriage" issues but they outline the intent - states are independant, but the federal government exists to ensure basic fairness, retain uniformity, and ensure the rule of objectivity and the upholding of the principles of freedom for every individual. If the ideas you describe were real, everything in article IV would not exist and Utah would have its own army, blacks still wouldn't be able to ride in the front of the bus, and while murder might still be illegal, almost all red states would accept the occasional beating of homosexuals... Article. IV. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Ammendment... Article [i.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Quoted post [/b] this is where the judicial dictatorship has won. they have taken power from congress. you think shit like this is crazy? utah having its own "army" etc etc? research jeffersons presidency when he called up the state militias, and connecticut among others practically told him to suck it, and they would only fight when thier state was threatenend. now stick y'all's head back in the PC ground.

Its been the tradition of the feds to monitor the peoples morality for quite some time now. the judicial dictatorship, deciding social issues for the people, is in direct defiance of the 1st amendment. if you forget or block out what the revisionists have taught you, go to the library, do some research. you will find that the puritans, quakers, etc etc, who settled new england essentially lived in minor theocracies. despite all the rage today, the vast majority of our country was founded by christians, wanting to practice thier religion the way they wanted to. it was not founded by athiests or devil worshippers as some would have you think. the majority of our first settlers came from europe, which was actually called "christendom" for quite some time. the founding fathers intended not for the federal government to decide these matters of morality, but for the states to decide. when a federal judge strikes down some kind of religious expression of any kind in any state, they are perverting the policies and intent of the founding fathers in their first amendment to the constitution. they intended, as they explained, TOTAL federal NON intervention in religious issues. using the federal government allow gay marriage is as bad as using the judicial dictatorship to ban gay marriage. it is a state issue. the first amendment was intended as historian David Hackett Fischer researched to protect religious freedom in Virginia and Pennsylvania and to "guarantee taht the religious establishments taht existed in Massachusetts and elsewhere would be safe from outside interference." the supreme court has linked marriage to pro-creation in many cases. the federal courts were created by congress. they have the power to abolish the federal courts, accept the supreme court. if congress got their act back together, and stopped giving in and listening to the judicial dictatorship make laws, they can constitutionally, limit the cases they can hear. they can limit cases of morality, and send them back to the states where they belong. just because a judge passes a decision, doesnt mean it is law. as Andrew Jackson said of a decision passed during his presidency, thats your decision, fine, "now you enforce it." If Mitt Romney of Mass, would of defied the federal court decision and not handed out marriage licenses, he would not even been defying a federal law. the executive has the power to choose to enforce the laws or not. gay marriage is not a "civil rights issue." i can guarantee religious black folk want nothing to do with passing gay marriage. MLK even said that a valid law is one based in the bible and its morality.

i know, like vinnie paz is totally not PC dude........

how bad would y'all cringe, when i told you alex jones: supports michael peroutka for president and backs the constitution party platform "110%?" i like the guy for entertainment, however you can take a point out of probably everyone of his radio shows and find false facts. like villian said, hes cool, but you gotta cross reference him. i cant wait till a liberal gets elected, then all of you will hate this guy............

word, i think each has their place. the ar's are good for close up. the m14 style is coming back from what i hear over in "hot sandy places." accuracy is another thing. you can sometimes get .25 moa out of a stock bushmaster. no one will guarantee a m1a hardly under 1 moa. and your paying upwards of 3000$ to get one guaranteed 1/2moa. i think the springfield socom 16 is sort of a happy medium. its a real round compared to the 5.56, is just as maneuverable as an ar, and its not some flat ass round like a 762x39. eh just my 2 cents.

i would personally take an m1 over an sks anyday. i hate those stripper clips. however price is a factor. if we talking wood sticks, i personally like the m1a/m14 style guns over the old top feeding actions. im not that big of a guy, and cannot fire a .308 chambered gun more than 50 or so rounds and stand much more. the 762x39 round is much lighter compared to the 762x51 (308) round. i would like to see what everyones consensus on the following are: 5.56mm vs 7.62.mm nato rounds- 5.56 more ammo for the weight, 7.62 longer range more stopping power. hard to control in bursts or rapid fire. keeping mags loaded. how fast does it take for the springs to really wear to warrant a bad feed? i keep the mags for my 1911 loaded minus 2 rounds. keep 5 loaded, 5 not, then alternate once a month. im usually shooting every week or 2

alot of the leading political figures in the deep south were some how related to the klan either for real, or "they had someone in their entourage who 'used' to be in the klan." however most of this is a stereotype for not supporting federal civil rights legislation. alot of it was preaching to the voters a gimmick that got them elected. most early 20th century politicians held on the notion of being unreconstructed and wanted to keep the freed slaves out of power. eh, just a bad transition from owning blacks to being their equal and during the reconstruction, often times, the blacks were the superior of the southern whites.

more from that other board... "Even though the recent "assault weapons-turned-survival" thread has quietly died due to some mild disagreement and everyone's desire to remain friendly, the topic has continued among a few of us in PM. Recently, the topic of survival groups has come up, so since I seem to have been deemed the resident crazy, paranoid survivalist type (mwuhaha, *rubs AR-15* ), I figured I'd turn the subject to the forum since I know a lot of this preparedness talk has gotten at least a few of you thinking. As thinking is a good thing, here's my take: There are two basic schools of thought in survivalism: bugging in and bugging out. Bugging in refers to staying put in your home or "survival location." Bugging out refers to leaving home and relocating to the "survival location" so you may bug in there. As so-called survivalists like to at least attempt to prepare for any contingency that may befall us, both are good to prepare for. For example, you keep a few months worth of food, water and other supplies stocked up in the basement. This is good in case of hurricanes or blizzards. But, you also keep a backpack or other bag/container loaded and ready to go just in case you've gotta haul tail outta Dodge. A nuclear, biological, or a chemical attack would be a perfect example of this necessity. Both have pros and cons, and in a survival type situation, cons could equal death to you and yours. So survivalism really boils down to risk management and problem mitigation. Not so crazy when you think of it like that, eh? Anyway, so far the United States and Canada have been lucky in the sense that every time there's a large disaster of some sort, there are always pockets of civilization. For example, even though hurricanes destroyed a lot of Florida last year (and may do so again this year!) and much of the electricity/cell phone service/water service/etc., was out state-wide, there was still the presence of civilization. However, the United States and Canada are almost singular in that regard, as a great many countries in the world have been stricken by a severe disaster that has affected the entire nation within the last 50-75 years. Basically, a survivalist believes that it's only a matter of time before it happens here. As we have seen in other parts of the world, and with our experience with Human nature, when the economy/society/government collapses, all hell usually breaks loose eventually. How long it takes for the break down depends on the nature of the problem. But regardless, it happens. Since we were also recently talking about EMP, let's use an EMP event as an example for discussion. Here's the scenerio: Iran has constructed/purchased 6 nuclear warheads and paid a Chinese nuclear physicist to enhance the weapons' EMP output. Meanwhile, the Iranians have modified several cargo ships to hold the missiles and have a retractable door over the hold so we'd be none the wiser. The ships approach the United States in the normal international shipping lanes and once they reach their launch points, they release their payloads. The 6 EMP-enhanced warheads detonate in spread out locations 200 miles above the surface of North America. The resulting EMP knocks out the northern third of Mexico, the continental United States and the southern third of Canda (almost all of the Canadian population is within a few hundred miles of the US/Canadian border) Lights out, Folks. Okay, so we lose most of our electronics. No big deal, right? Except that most cars built post-1985 are now 3,000 pounds of scrap. And most of our transformers have blown due to the surges in the lines. Likewise, power plants are dead. It would be easy enough to rebuild, many would say, however how many spare transformers do you think your local power company keeps on hand? A few hundred, tops...For a city that has literally thousands upon thousands of transformers. Even small towns and cities will be grossly under-stocked. We couldn't simply get new transformers as all the factories would be down. Europe couldn't simply send us more as they use a completely different system than we do, so we'd have incompatibility issues. Plus, what if Europe was hit by an EMP too? So the power outtage would be fairly permanent, lasting at least a few years. Some estimates plan on a decade or more. Given our extreme dependency on electricity and the proliferation of necessary electrical equipment to support that dependency, a 10 year estimate is not at all unreasonable. Without electricity, most would be without a lot of necessities, the most important of which would be water. Granted, most places rely on gravity for water pressure, it still takes power to pump water up into the large tanks. Once the tanks are empty, no more water pressure or water period. Those with wells probably use electric pumps and only those with windmills and survivalists with hand pumps would be immune to the water shortage. Unfortunately, that's not many people. Let's assume that the community water tanks hold enough water to supply everyone with the necessary 1 gallon per day needed by a human for a healthy diet for a week. Add to that the 30 gallon supply in the water heater. For a family of 3, that's 10 more days. Also figure that most of us probably only keep around a few days worth of food, no more than a week or two in the majority of homes. Grocery stores would still be stocked up, but they don't have enough food to supply an entire community for more than a couple of days themselves. The distribution centers don't hold more than a month's worth of food for the stores they supply, but that's useless if all the delivery trucks are dead. So, at best, most people would be out of food within a week or two and out of water within two weeks as well. In the meantime though, the government would be doing it's best to spread propaganda around about how "the power will be back soon, everyone stay calm." Most people are sheep, so as long as there was food and water for those two weeks, for the most part that tactic would work. On the side, the government would be mobilizing the military and FEMA for martial law if they haven't declared it already (which they probably would have). Then the end of week two hits. All the food is gone. All the water is gone. Primal instinct kicks in. Rioting that was once sparse, will become widespread and people will begin to loot, trying to find the necessities of life. They can't be blamed in doing this though, they're just trying to save themselves and their families. Regardless, previously good people will now be willing to kill you for what you've got, even if it's nothing more than the bottle of water in your hand, the shoes on your feet, or the gun on your hip. Over the course of the next week or two, the unprepared will basically kill each other or form gangs to more efficiently loot and pillage. The government will order everyone to move into what are more or less "concentration camps." Those who do not comply, will literally be rounded up by patrols of National Guard, regular and reserve military and local law enforcement. Rioters, looters, etc., will be executed on sight. The powers of martial law will be used to their fullest extent. All rights will be stripped. You will be a criminal if you do not obey the order to move into the camps. You could be held indefinitely without trial, but most likely, you will simply be stripped of everything you own and they will tell you it will be "used for the common good" as they toss you into the concentration camp with the rest of the sheep. Naturally, the government cannot cover the vast majority of the rural land that comprises the United States and Canada, so they will focus their efforts on metropolitan areas since that's where most of the population is. They will assume nature will take care of most everyone else, and those it does not are not significant enough of a threat to bother with...For now at least. Thus, living in the country will offer the greatest protection from martial law and concentration camps. But, those who also do not wish to comply with martial law, like survivalists, the desperate lucky and criminals, will flee the cities and move into the countryside. So after all that set-up, here's the problem: Assuming you either already live in the country or you've found your way to a bug-out location in the country, and assuming you're prepared to survive, you've got a serious problem. Actually, you've got a set of serious problems. 1) Desperate people will be coming your way. They will likely be willing to do anything to get what you have inside your home or "survival compound." Most will probably pass if you tell them, but some will require forceable convincing. 2) Survivalists will be coming your way. As they're like-minded, they will probably be good to go and not need your assistance. However, some may be the "commando" type and figure they have a good chance at getting some of your goods. 3) Criminals will be heading your way. They may be in the form of gangs, and will not discriminate whatsoever in their selection of targets. Each and every person, house and man-made object will be targets for their efforts. These gangs may be as few as half a dozen, on up to 100 or more, depending on the leadership and mindset. Don't expect to be able to reason with these people. 4) The government, eventually, may head your way. Believe it or not, the government is probably the least of your worries, providing you can get out of their way first. And hopefully, by the time they get around to sweeping the countryside looking for people like you, most of the soldiers and police will have said "screw this" and gone home to their families. Still, as preparedness is the name of the game, the government is still a contingency to prepare for. Now back to the whole point of this...What are your thoughts on forming a survival group / colony? Remember, the "Defender's Advantage" is 1 defender to 3 attackers, providing decent weapons and preparations such as fortified positions, fields of fire, etc. Little training would be required just so long as the man or woman in the foxhole knows how to fire their weapon, reload it, and where and what to shoot at. The basics of retreating would be a benefit for them to know, as well as those behind them knowing how to provide suppression fire. While everyone living in the same immediate area on some remote plot of land in Texas or Montana for the sole purpose of survival probably isn't the most practical thing in the world, my belief is, a loose network of sorts would be a good idea. Knowing your neighbors is a very good thing in this sense, and indeed, they may believe what you believe. In addition, having an open invitation to your home for people that you trust all over the continent would be a good idea too. For example, when the wife and I get situated on our ranch in Montana, several of you would be welcome to our place should the crap hit the fan. Prior to any emergencies, we would work out the logistics of you getting to our place, and once the bad deal went down, you could bug-out to Montana. At least, that's what this crazy-assed, paranoid, BDU-wearing, AR-15 petting, survivalist thinks. Oh, and if you think the scenerio about Iran putting EMP-enhanced nukes in cargo ships and launching them is a whole lotta B.S., think again. Donald Rumsfeld gave an intelligence briefing about this very event. The Iranians performed a dry run of precisely this situation last November over in the Red Sea. The cargo ships that launched the dummy missiles wormed their way into cargo convoys and were lost in the thick of things. Now ask yourself, who do you think they're preparing to EMP attack? Sleep well tonight. But more importantly, think. Remember that the American Founding Fathers wanted us to be independently independent, and ready for any problems that we may face. Preparedness and survival isn't about being a paranoid anarchist, it's about being a good American, a good provider for your family, and a responsible, moral person. Think about it. *EDIT* I just wanted to add that I'm not advocating that this scenerio is the most likely even to happen. Naturally, other disasters are more likely, and which one depends on where you live (hurricanes on the Gulf, tornadoes in Texas, earthquakes in California, etc.). This is simply the "worst case scenerio" in my opinion and would thusly require the most extreme measures, like forming a survival group. I'm also not advocating that everyone should do this thing or that thing, and rather bring this particular situation up merely for the purposes of discussion. My "crazy" only goes so far.

im not a huge fan of the soviet style guns, (eh maybe its more on principle...) but for situations like this, they are plentiful, cheap, ammo is cheap, and ammo is plentiful. basically anything chambered in a "nato" round is what you want. you dont want to be stuck trying to hand load something. which is one of the reasons i dont have one of the new 6.8x43spc ar15's yet. availability of ammo sucks. the m44's are literally cheaper than dirt. i have heard of group deals where you can get them for as little as 75$ apeice if you buy like 10 of them. and i have heard some of these things getting accuracy under 2 moa at 100 yd. a buddy of mine is was on a kick of buying cheaper foreign type military arms, and they just seem so cheap. bolts real tight, problems loading, feeding sucks... but what do you expect for the money. it would be nice for everyone to have new m16a4's or m4's but again cost is a factor. as for the guy who said you cant believe kabar has a carry permit... i ask, do you wear your seatbelt in your car? thats all a gun is. its just like wearing your seatbelt in a car. granted my state is pretty tough on carrying, but my dad just got a carry permit since he is a business owner. i could definately get mine, since he did, under the same qualifications, however its really not worth it, with the restrictions on it. it would basically only entitle me to legally wear a gun in my car going to and from work, since i can wear a gun on private business property and at home. i like michael badnarik's stance on the issue. when asked why he chooses to carry a gun, but without a permit, he responded "rights dont require permission." our country would be WAY better off if we adopted vermont/alaska style carry laws. open carry for anyone, with out a permit. this same topic of survivalism came up on another board i frequent, here is a post someone made on "why we need assault weapons." "Americans and Canadians, please read the following even though it's long: Not to advocate illegal activity, but to advocate illegal activity, I do believe that if I lived in an area ripe with crime and well-armed drug farmers/guards, I'd disregard any local law saying I couldn't have equal and superior firepower to protect myself or others. Sure, you run the risk of getting caught, but we as Americans are getting to the point where good, honest, law abiding citizens need to start a campaign of passive resistance. You must ask yourself, what is more important? An anti-Constitutional law written by some paranoid, power hungry dipshit, or making an effort at ensuring your survival, along with possibly your families or friends survival? For those of you who aren't American or Canadian, let me point something out to quell some confusion and concern, as I believe this issue is very cultural: survival, safety and freedom are often contrary to each other. All three can be used as a means to one of the other's end, but sometimes they butt heads. We all cherish freedom. We cherish the relative safety that it provides. But freedom needs tending as there are those who seek to encroach upon it for their own selfish ends. As this happens from time to time (hence the term "revolution"), we must sacrifice our safety to ensure our survival, so that we may last to keep our and future generations' freedom alive. I'm not talking about martyrdom, rather intelligent resistance. Revolutionary hero Patrick Henry said "give me Liberty, or give me death!" and that's just what he got; the stupid SOB was hung by his neck while thousands of other "Yankee Rebels" fought smart and won the war. Martyrdom may be all well and great when forming a nation, but that sort of mentality has no place in today's world. What good does screaming a battle cry and running headlong into the enemy with guns a'blazin' do for your family? If you're dead, who's around to fight for them? No, today's battles must be fought differently, but with the same concept as our Founding Fathers used to topple the British Empire with a rag-tag group of farmers and smiths who were untrained and scared crapless to go to war. I'm talking about guerilla warfare, but of a more nonviolent, organized and peacefully resistive sort. For example, what happens when the 100 million (or more) Americans with guns just up and decide to carry them in public one day? Imagine it...1 in 3 of us. Sure, Liberals would soil themselves and wide-spread arrests would be made. But can they take us all? Martial law could never be applied to effect as there aren't enough active or reserve military, nor would the National Guard be effective as they're ill-equipped to handle large scale suppression against a peaceful people who are spread out amongst everyone, going about their daily business and not rioting in a single place where they can be contained. Indeed, there would be a "crisis" for the government, as We The People realize once more that our government exists because we allow it to. Power would be stricken from the hands that bind us and the naysayers thrown in Fort Leavenworth for Constitional impingement. Unrealistic? Why? Damn a stupid 10 round mag restriction. Forget bans on folding stocks. Screw it all. I'm not championing a firefight with the government but I do sanction resistance. Your life, your families lives, your friends lives or even random strangers lives are much more important to uphold than upholding some damned law jammed through the legislatures and judiciaries by some anti-American Big Government arsewipe. The Garand is an outstanding rifle and all Americans should own one (see the CMP for details on how) and revere it as a near-Holy object as it has ensured the freedom for millions and vindicated the lives and causes of countless millions more who died. There is no glory in death, but there sure as hell is glory in making sure the dead did not die in vain. However, the Garand has seen her day and is best replaced for today's struggle. That means adopting a firearm that is almost universally despised by the anti-gunners. These so-called "evil" firearms are evil because they pose the greatest threat to entrenched power. "They" do not like inexpensive military style firearms with bayonet lugs, high capacity magazines, folding/collapsible stocks, pistol grips, threaded barrels, etc. So that's precisely the sort of gun we all should buy, and by the droves! I submit that each and every one of us Americans and Canadians go out and buy a Yugoslavian SKS. Brand new they cost around $150. You can find them used sometimes for half that. Cut the barrel back to 14.5", thread it and weld on a good flash hider to bring it up to 16" (or if you're going to break the law, might as well make the barrel shorter and forget about welding the muzzle device). Ditch the wood stock in favor of a composite folding stock. Replace that crappy 10 round mag with a few 30 or 40 rounders then load them up, minus 2, with surplus ammo and armor piercing rounds every 3, 4 or 5 rounds, with a tracer 4 or 5 rounds from the bottom so that when the crap hits the fan, you'll know when it's about time to dump the mag and you don't get caught with an empty gun at the wrong time. For less than $300, you can have a gun that packs a whole lotta punch, is extremely effective at sub-300 yard engagements and will really, really piss off the anti-gunners. It's the epitome of what they hate, so sock it to 'em hard. If you live in an anti-gun state, you should be careful with such a weapon. Remember: passive resistance. If you choose to carry it in your vehicle, take great care to hide it well. Use your imagination and you can come up with ways. From experience, I can say cops aren't always the most thorough searchers. Providing you don't break any other laws to attract attention, you should never have that problem anyway. Also, join as many strong firearms associations as you can, since if you get caught, you're going to need legal counsel from someone who understands your plight. If you get busted take it to the Supreme Court and force the issue in our highest court who has tip-toed around the Second Amendment for far too long. No better time than the near future when Bush loads the bench with conservatives! Keep in mind as you read all this, that I'm not saying you should be stupid. I really hate advocating breaking the law, but these sort of laws are illegal in themselves! But if you cherish freedom and survival, prepare to sacrifice. Survival doesn't always mean "maintaining current way of life." If you get caught, expect to pay The Man because he's gonna be mighty P.O'ed that you dared to defy him. The views insisted upon by me in this post are not necessarily the views of others on this forum, Sniper Central or it's owner, but by God they're the views of every last living American and Canadian patriot whose hearts beat to the sound of a drummer in our not-so-distant past. When trouble comes knocking, answer with superior force. It's the American way. It's the way of Freedom. If not for you, for your children. If not now, when? "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." - Thomas Jefferson"

also if the .410 is a damascus twist, make sure you dont fire any kind of "hevi" shot or steel shot, or "hi power." its designed for the lead only shells. also dont fire slugs unless your positive its an open choke, although, most .410's are i think. the ironic part is, .410 shells are damn near twice as much as your normal box of target load 12guage's. i found this out recently, my little brother got his first .410. so i went to by some rounds for him, i grabbed a case of 12 guage size 8 target loads for skeet shooting for 32$. go to grab a couple boxes of .410's, the cheapest box is 11.99 for 25 shells. looked around and found some target loads for 7.99. slugs were 6.99 for 5.

damn, i is like so hurting over this.

oh screw it, just to stir the pot a little bit. larry elder, a black libertarian. The race card -- 2005 Larry Elder January 13, 2005 The Democratic Party continues to play the race card for political gain. The Reverend Jesse Jackson steamed into Ohio, the so-called battleground state that went for Bush, claiming that Ohioans' votes failed to count. "The playing field is uneven," said Jackson. "...We as Americans should not be begging a secretary of state for a fair vote count. We cannot be the home of the thief and the land of the slave." Remember the claims by John Kerry and others of one million black voters disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election? Peter Kirsanow, a black attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, says the commission's six-month investigation failed to find any evidence of black voter "intimidation." "Not one person was intimidated," says Kirsanow, "[or] had their vote stolen. There was no disenfranchisement . . . no truth to any of those allegations." According to columnist John Leo, contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report: If an effort was underway to suppress the black vote, it clearly failed: 900,000 blacks voted in Florida, up 65 percent over the 1996 presidential election. That unexpectedly high total clearly strained the system, put pressure on officials and voters to move along quickly, and kept phone lines clogged when voter verification calls were needed. P. Diddy, the rapper, music mogul and fashion impresario, spearheaded a "Vote or Die!" voter awareness campaign. Diddy called himself a "disenfranchised voter." "...I'm...a disenfranchised voter," said Diddy, "...because politicians, they just didn't pay attention to us. I call ourselves 'the forgotten ones' -- youth and minority voters. Their campaign trails don't come into our communities unless they go to the churches, and they don't stop and speak to us." Sort of a 21st-century definition of the word "disenfranchisement." Whatever. Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager -- and a black woman -- called the Republican Party the party of the "white boys." According to Brazile, "A white boy attitude is, 'I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.' They don't see it or think about it. It's a culture." (Brazile now serves as an analyst for CNN.) Samuel L. Jackson is a respected black actor who appeared in more American films than anyone during the 1990s. In April 2000, he appeared on the cover of Architectural Digest, along with Clark Gable, Natalie Wood, William H. Macy, Hedy Lamarr, Marilyn Monroe, Bing Crosby, Doris Day and Claire Danes. Surely the Jackson family celebrated the actor's appearance on the cover, and the glowing inside piece on their lovely home. Wrong. Because Jackson shared the cover with other celebrities, his wife, LaTanya Richardson Jackson, wrote to the magazine and accused it of racism: "It is with sincere regret that I write to tell you how disappointing it is to see my husband, Samuel L. Jackson, featured in the lower left-hand corner on the cover of your April 2000 issue," wrote Mrs. Jackson. "It seems a very odd and racist placement. In the magazine racks of most establishments you don't see him at all; perhaps that was the point. I hardly think anyone is really more interested in all of the dead people you chose to prominently display . . . ." More recently, the actor implied racism on the part of the National Basketball Association for severe punishment of athletes involved in the Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers' brawl in Michigan: ...t kinda looked like a, you know, black-athlete-beatin'-up-white-fan fight more so than, you know, athletes versus fans.... It looked like it was [a racial element], and I'm sure Commissioner Stern had to defuse that situation, like getting rid of the bad guy. But you can't deprive a guy of makin' a livin' all year, just because he did something like that. Actor Will Smith blamed racism for the AIDS epidemic. "I firmly believe that it is quite highly possible," said Smith, "that the AIDS virus is the result of genetic warfare testing." Richard Williams, father of tennis sensations Venus and Serena Williams, also has three stepdaughters -- one is an actress and singer, one is a lawyer, and one, now deceased, attended medical school. His view of America's "race relations"? "In America," says Williams, "black people doesn't really have an opportunity at nothin'. . . . It's kinda bad bein' black in America." Polls find young blacks less likely to call racism America's No. 1 issue. A Time/CNN poll found 89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be "a small problem" or "not a problem at all." Twice as many black teens as white believe that "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" is a bigger problem for blacks than discrimination. Polls and focus groups show younger blacks less likely to identify themselves as Democrats, and more likely to support partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers and the abolition of race-based preferences. This spells trouble for the Democratic Party and its monolithic black vote. Horrors! The Democrats may have to find another card to play.

"My point is that the Republican party is more flush with racists than other alternatives. " not totally. most of the "radical right wing extremists" are not part of the republican party. just for the hell of it, read up on some of what the racist whacko's think. aside from thier race being superior, (and fuck racism period, not just ESPECIALLY fuck white vs everyone else racism) they mostly display radical views toward government. usually anti government sentiment all together. to the point, lets take David Duke. ran as a republican. he basically denounces everything the bush administration stands for. i think i might of heard he dropped his party affiliation or something. i think you might just be towing the party line and feeding off of what you hear. as kabar pointed out, there is shady activity to go around everywhere. im talking REAL racism, not just a loose redundant charge slung at someone mainly from the left side of the isle when you cant have a serious debate. to the point: check up on the racism charges, see what they really are, see if it is just some blank half truth argument, like "OMG! THEY LIKE WANT TO STOP THOSE POOR PEOPLE FROM ENTERING OUR COUNTRY! OMG OMG!!!!!" and actually see what party they are in. i dont think to many "racists" actually back bush. "I suppose the reason why racism by non-whites against whites seems less offensive to me is because " as for this statement, it just glows with double standard. im not saying your condoning farraKKKan, but i could argue this same logic of reactionary racism from this standpoint. my girl's father has had a long history of unprovoked "racist" acts against him. so basically he is racist. i constantly would give my girl shit about some stuff he would say, but got bored of it. so because he is white and had several distinguished racist acts done to him from the ghetto black population near by, is it "not as offensive" for him to be racist in return? to me, it just as bad as the black panthers, or the neo nazi's. hating someone for the color of thier skin is sheer ignorance, any way you look at it. and this is the reason why, when i found out that the ARA uses similar logic, and basically wont do shit to represent and fight for people other than blacks etc, and communists are found at thier rallies, i threw away my ara jacket and denounce them every chance i get. be non biased in fighting racism. period.

thats one damn funny link.

i found this quote while surfing i think it sorta sums it up pretty good... in reguards to the larry pratt/militia groups.... "Contrary to popular belief, most militia members are hard-working, average Americans who are loyal to the United States, the Constitution, and the rights granted thereunder. However, there are also many who can accurately be described as right-wing extremists, terrorists or racists; sometimes... all three."

we can argue about this forever, but i'll just send this again... "as tancredo said, dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck, is used only to try to discredit your opponent, when you have no other real arguments." as for buchanan being racist, please check out theamericancause.org and find racist material on there. buchanan advocates the same stuff goldwater did till the end of his career in the 80's. i have come to the conclusion that if someone isnt calling you a racist today, you aint doing something right. most views to the very slight right of center are considered racist and bigoted. thats fine, im starting something new. anything to the slight left, you are a fucking commie. lol "You might truly believe conservative policies, but there are many who are just plain racist. If you are a true conservative you would be better off dealing with the Libertarians, or even Anarchists rather than defending these racists. " thats the thing. i like the libertarian party, however thier social issues are to liberal for my tastes. im sure there are some that are racist, im sure there are some democrats who are racist. again refer to my reposted quote above....

"Carto's operation got a big boost when Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964. Although he lost by a landslide, the Liberty Lobby drew a large bloc of Goldwater followers into its orbit by distributing over 20 million pieces of pro-Republican literature. Carto's strategy was to use the names culled from the Goldwater campaign to gain leverage within the GOP. Hiding behind a conservative veneer, he sough to build "a party within a party" so that eventually the racialist Right might seize power by stealth. If that approach failed, a third-party bid remained an option in the future. Carto was willing to try different tactics. " i dont know alot about "carto's operation" however to try to link goldwater as a die hard racist is about absurd. did he oppose civil rights legislation? sure did. what other government interventions/bills/agencies does he oppose? damn near all of them. to say he has a "conservative veneer" is just a sneaky line. ""Our culture is superior to other cultures, superior because our religion is Christianity," he declared. Reeking of Christian patriot rhetoric, his antiforeigner stump speech scapegoated undocumented "aliens" ("listen, Jose, you're not coming in this time!") and called for protectionist trade measures. During the 1996 GOP primaries, Buchanan was endorsed by several prominent religious Right leaders and by the Liberty Lobby. "Buchanan's campaign platform reads like nothing less than a statement of the Liberty Lobby's positions on the issues," the Spotlight noted. " once again, talk about spin. so if buchanan gives a speech, and some white supremicists are there is he one? is wanting to get rid of ILLEGAL aliens racist? wanting illegals to get the fuck out, is racism in the 21st century. same with protectionism. your racist if you advocate it. as tancredo said, dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck, is used only to try to discredit your opponent, when you have no other real arguments. " The cochairman of Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign was Larry Pratt, a key figure in militia leadership circles. As head of Gun Owners of America, Pratt attended the October 1992 militia planning meeting in Colorodo hosted by Christian Identity pastor Pete Peters. A featured speaker at Liberty Lobby conferences, Pratt also appeared at rallies with prominent white supremacists such as Eustace Mullins, Aryan Nations chief Richard Butler, and former KKK leader Lous Beam. In addition, Pratt was a financial supporter of CAUSE, the ultra-right-wing legal foundation run by Kirk Lyons. After Pratt's forced to resign from the Buchanan campaign, which officially employed several other white supremacists." im sure kabar could touch on larry pratt, but gun owners of america is a great group. of course any thing with "militia" in a story, is immediately labeled racist. half of th post above is spin and half truths. most of these allegations proved false later on. i mean seriously if we wanted to pull some "guilty by association" stuff, i could be pulling that all you guys who voted for kerry are racist because edwards advocates some what protectionist policies and the majority leader at the time robert byrd was an ex klan recruiter. of course this ground is all well trod, but i just want to point out, before the left throws fingers at someone, they need to take a look at themselves. i dont blame it on pratt or buchanan because some white supremicists flock to their platform. i might of missed the racist parts of buchanan's platform, but i thought it contained a line..."equal rights to ALL, special rights for none." i wouldnt trust the SPLC on much, they called pratt and buchanan racist too. hell, read about them on the SPLC page, they are practically adolf and mousillini from ameriKKKa. same with howard phillips etc etc, even the LOS they explicately state hatred for racist groups. they condemned the minute man project as a racist group as well.

kabar layed it out pretty good. the thing that sucks about this situation is the fucked up shit the klan was doing, along with the crimes and shady shit the feds were doing. it is a noble cause to "keep the feds out" however when it is solely for race issues, its pretty fucked up. " The influence of the Klan is pitifuly small today. They have around 5,000 members, nation wide. In 1963 they had hundreds of thousands. " exactly. the klan is absolutely nothing this day and age. correct me if im wrong but the highest concentration of klansmen is somewhere like ohio. "please. theres no such thing as an ex klansman." i can somewhat agree with this. i wonder if this applies to robert byrd as well?

i would seriously laugh my ass off if he did get re-elected. this amendment will pass just like the "arnold" amendment. never.

Reviving the Foreign-aid Racket by Patrick J. Buchanan June 15, 2005 "Debt Cut Is Set for Poorest Nations" was the headline in Sunday's Washington Post over the lead story. "The world's wealthiest nations," wrote Paul Blustein, "agreed yesterday to cancel more than $40 billion in debts that some of the world's poorest nations owe to international lenders – a move inspired by the belief that full debt forgiveness is necessary to give those countries a chance to escape the trap of hunger, disease and economic stagnation." Sounds wonderful. Alan Cowell's story in the New York Times explained: "The deal [is] expected to ease the 18 poorest countries' annual debt burdens by $1.5 billion. They are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. All must take anticorruption measures." It is hard not to break out laughing at that last line. This $40 billion debt write-off is being hailed as the most magnanimous act since the Marshall Plan. But there is another way to see it: George Bush signed onto one of the biggest bailouts in history. For, here, children, is what has just gone down: First, that $40 billion was squandered or stolen by the most corrupt regimes and biggest thieves in the Third World. The money is gone. We shall never see it again. And all the wastrels and crooks who got away with it will not be pursued. Second, the idiot-bankers at the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank who failed to do due diligence when they made the $40 billion in loans, and lied about how good the loans were, will not be exposed and prosecuted, or tarred and feathered as they should. Third, the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank will see all their lost funds replenished, so they can start flying around to those same exotic countries and capitals, shelling out new loans to the same crowd of crooks and incompetents, or their successors. Fourth, American taxpayers will have to pony up the cash for this historic bailout of the international banks. Why is this happening? Because George Bush owes Tony Blair, and because Blair, bless his socialist soul, believes in the salvific power of foreign aid and has to bring home some bacon to show his skeptical countrymen the "special relationship" between the two is not that of master and poodle. Make no mistake. This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank. They will get the money to replace their lost loans. As in a Monopoly game where the rules are thrown out, they will be handed new money to play with. Bush and Blair are bailing out failed global institutions run by the highest-paid bureaucrats on earth. What should have been done? The IMF, World Bank and ADB should have been held to the same standards as any U.S. government bank that squandered capital entrusted to its care. Congressional auditors should have gone over their books, looked at the bad loans, looked at the backup provided and statements made at the time by lending officers, then let the American people know whether they had been faithful custodians of our tax dollars or clowns who ought not to be trusted with kids' lunch money. If the banks failed, they should be forced to undergo the same discipline and downsizing as any public bank that made similar unsecured loans and lost $40 billion. At the least, we should shut down the World Bank-IMF country club in Montgomery County, Md. – and make them all travel coach. But none of this is going to happen. All three of these institutions will soon be back at the same game, and their critics will be denounced as hard-hearted conservatives who lack compassion for the world's poor. When an American worker has to take a hit for every foolish or failed investment in the family portfolio or 401K, why do international bankers and bureaucrats work with a safety net and always get a bailout? Why do they never have to answer or apologize for the follies they commit? By all means, give the African people debt relief. But why let the lenders who lied and lost the money off the hook? In the last analysis, it is Congress that has failed in its stewardship of the money entrusted to it by the most generous people on earth. A self-confident government would not give the IMF, World Bank or African Development Bank another dime. Let them call us names. Unfortunately, we have a Congress that cannot say no to any demand for foreign aid in the name of the "world's poorest" and a U.S. government that cannot stand up to a moral shakedown. © 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

"dont think i dont have straight edge friends and family bu they arnt constantly throwing that shit in my face and wearing XXX t shirts and bumper stickers and shit...gimme a fucking break!!!!!" seriously man how is this any different than someone wearing a beer shirt or some kind of "i do mad drugs" shirt? i got half a closet full of straight edge shirts or shirts of bands that are straight edge. i havent touched a drop of any drug or alcohol in my whole life, and yes im older than 21. most kids i know/knew who were straight edge sold out. i have about 5 close friends who are straightedge, including a few graffiti writers who are super up. as a rule, most people who flaunt it real hard, fall the hardest, thats not the case ALL the time. if you drink/do drugs i dont give fuck. 90% of my crew are fucking alcoholics. half of them do serious drugs. i dont give them shit, they dont give me shit. of course we have some kidding around... but thats with anything. i do like meat however. and DEATH TO ALL HIPSTERS!

"This will probably be pulled when they are trying to build a case on a bigger fish. " *nail hit squarely on head*

"One consequence of the civil rights act was that it pushed racists out of the democratic party and into the republican." villian, i think you are both right and wrong. the civil rights acts, not just the THE civil rights act of 1964, or the voting act, but say even events that happened in the 40s and before, are very complex. you cant just label the 2 parties of one ideology of their own. i hear it all the time. republicans are racist. over 90% of congressional republicans supported the civil rights acts. FDR did nothing for civil rights. different wings of the 2 parties existed. there was still liberals in the democratic party, as well as liberals or rockefeller republicans in that party. most of the old hardcore pro segregation politicians were democrats. the southern democrats were as conservative or more conservative than the traditional conservative party, the GOP. the reason the civil rights acts forced alot of the southern democrats to the republicans, was because of one movement in the republican party during this time, Barry Goldwater. this guy is about the most anti federal government power guy, ever. im not for one second denying that the old southern democrats who preached segregation forever, werent racist, however, you got to realize that not only did they vote against the civil rights laws, they voted against most other federal expansion. the more power they get, the more control. the republican party, was to the south, the party of lincoln. the yankee party. they would not vote for them. they used the democratic solid stronghold to discredit black votes after reconstruction, and get the yanks out of the south. it took many many years to get people to move to the republican party. i still hear my grandparents talking about how they cant beleive they voted for reagan. a republican. the history of 2 parties is quite complex. for instance the reason why FDR is so great is because of his new deal. you never hear anyone talk shit on him for not pushing for civil rights laws. the reason why he didnt push for it, was because of his southern support. he was a pussy on the issue. if he would of set his platform to include civil rights laws, he would of lost the south. take for instance truman, he lost the south, he won however. mainly because of the 3rd party split when the southern democrats walked out in '48 and formed the states rights democratic party. as for the civil rights laws themselves, this is an example when the use of thier power was needed. the states rights concept wasnt flying for equality under the law. the whole segregation thing was an adaptation of the blacks being slaves, and no one knew how to deal with them. lincoln himself when asked what to do with the free blacks...."deport them." the north had just as much hatred and racism for them as the south. segregation in the north was as bad as the south. the blame goes all around. after the civil war, laws forbid blacks to settle in northern cities. state constitutions wouldnt allow free blacks to settle there. west virginia had a clause in there forbidding blacks to live in the state, yet they "seceded" from the state of virginia to join the union. so much for the northern good guys vs the bigots from dixie. you should get ahold of "the dixiecrat revolt" and "the rise of southern republicans" for more on this, man. its mostly boring reading, but the info is in there. its super complex.

yeah man its definately not that simple. "they" would have to make a case against you proving that "you seen "teh" weed." lol

Alright... I was just testing your bias on this issue.... since most people are hypocritcal when they say they want to cut government spending. Since you want government so small.... what then, to you, is the purpose of government, if not to provide for the welfare and safety of it's people? Quoted post [/b] very good question villian, i suggest for starters, im sure you already have, but, read the constitution. it tells you everything. who knows maybe i missed that part that promises socialist institutions and government dependence for everyone. :innocent: "since most people are hypocritcal when they say they want to cut government spending. " understood. this is a problem with your typical neo-conservative. one thing i am all for government spending on is for defense. however, we have a new homeland security department, but what the fuck is the purpose of this department when we have a department of defense? makes no sense. this sorta thing is what people over look when they look at the people who were anti civil rights bills. granted a shit load of the opponents of civil rights legislation were flat out racist and played on what people wanted to hear, it is glossed over that they voted against EVERY other bill to expand the federal government. just a thought.