lord_casek Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Casek I hope you remeber that are forefathers where white slave owners who didnt like to pay taxes... you dipshit, you can't pull in what was acceptable socially into this. congress voted that black men were only 2/3 human. therefore making them viable slave material. of course, they aren't, but that was the mode of thinking at the time. and taxes? we pay taxes now that aren't legal. i.e. federal income. bankers lied and got that shit passed. check your history. they fought against the same things. they were fighting a dictator. bush apparently wants the same fucking power that monarch had. this realy pisses me off to no end. nobody gives a fuck about this country dying. it's belly up. thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 VOTE IN 08, are freedom depends on it!! it won't help unless we get the whole of the present govt out of office. pitchforks and torches, bitches. pitchforks and torches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 what is that photo of? ^^ waco? yes sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 you dipshit, you can't pull in what was acceptable socially into this. congress voted that black men were only 2/3 human. therefore making them viable slave material. of course, they aren't, but that was the mode of thinking at the time. and taxes? we pay taxes now that aren't legal. i.e. federal income. bankers lied and got that shit passed. check your history. they fought against the same things. they were fighting a dictator. bush apparently wants the same fucking power that monarch had. this realy pisses me off to no end. nobody gives a fuck about this country dying. it's belly up. thanks. i feel your pain casek. i get fired up too, but as of the last couple months i found a new route to take. i simply dont get my hopes up. if i have low expectations, when people discount views that you and I have, i just smile, and shrug my shoulders. no one cares. all they care about is ipods, tv drama, and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 no doubt. it's just funny that people are so blind to this moment in history. this is world changing, life changing. we are living in a time people will definitely remember for the rest of human history. i can't help but try and tell people that our country isn't our country any longer. it's not theo or sneakandcavuto that have me fired up. it's the idea that alot of americans feel the same way as theo. this really was a good country full of men who were men. not scared little bitches. now it seems everyone is too scared to say "fuck this shit! this is ours! we are taking it back!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 VOTE IN 08, are freedom depends on it!! vote for who? democrats? any way you swing it, we are screwed with a capital S. the democrats have throughout the 20th century shown thier total and complete nincompoopery in running the country. the republicans have also throughout the 20th century, shown thier complete nincompoopery and abandonment of principle. i used to be a strong supporter of voting. i still vote, but i keep reading stuff like this and its starting to change my mind... Reasons to Vote Debunked! Gary Galles As election day nears, America’s get-out-the-vote frenzy is entering high gear, trying to browbeat voters into exercising their franchise with various arguments. Unfortunately, those arguments reflect seriously flawed logic. "If you don't vote, you don't have a voice in government." This is one of many arguments based on the false premise that your vote will affect what passes and who wins. But your vote will not change the outcome. You will prosper or suffer under the same laws and representatives whether you voted for the winner or the loser, or didn’t vote. "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about government." This reflects the same false assumption. But even if your vote would determine the result, binary choices between "electable" candidates and yes or no votes on initiatives written by special interests hardly gives you the power to invoke your preferences. "If you don't vote, you don't care about America." No amount of care justifies voting if that vote doesn't alter the outcome. Abstaining has been common since the foundation of our country (although unlike today, it then largely reflected the fact that the government had little power to hurt or help you), when new citizens who had risked their lives to create it cared a great deal. "Many brave Americans have died to defend your right to vote." Even granting the flawed premises, those who fought to found and preserve our country did so for our liberty and to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United State," not for our right to vote. Anyone with even passing familiarity with the American Revolution and Constitution Ratification Debates knows that the key was not the right to vote (e.g., the many references to the tyranny of the majority), but a Constitution that severely circumscribed government’s ability to abuse their citizens. This is why the Supreme Court can override majority votes when they conflict with the Constitution. And if people died for voting rights, why has turnout never approached 100%? "It is your duty to vote." Voting is a citizen's right, implying the right to abstain, not a duty. I have a right to become drunk, divorced and destitute, but that does not give me the duty to do any of them. And if one is not highly informed on an issue, as is true of most, casting an uninformed vote is more a dereliction of duty than a fulfillment of it, contributing nothing valuable to electoral results. "You must vote, because the electoral process would collapse if everyone chose not to vote.” Beyond the insignificant probability of everyone abstaining, this is just the common "if everyone" fallacy. Unless your voting choice alters many others' choices about whether and/or how to vote, which is unlikely, this is irrelevant to whether you should vote (though politicians must, to be taken seriously, as witnessed by the harassment given to any candidate who ever failed to vote in previous elections). Do the many invalid “get-out-the-vote” arguments imply that you shouldn't vote? No. But it implies that you shouldn’t vote for invalid reasons. For instance, since your one electorally insignificant vote will not change the result, voting to transfer others’ wealth to you is simply a morally offensive but ineffective attempt at theft. Similarly, choosing to vote despite massive ignorance produces no benefit to you or society. Voting can, however, be a valid form of cheering for candidates and issues you believe advance what James Madison termed “the general and permanent good of the whole,” or against those that violate it (that is one reason why voting against ballot initiatives so often makes sense). Your vote may not change the outcome, but it will avoid endorsing efforts to plunder some for others, which, except in politics, we recognize as theft. That is the most your vote can accomplish. So if you vote, that is what your purpose should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R@ndomH3ro Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 no doubt. it's just funny that people are so blind to this moment in history. this is world changing, life changing. we are living in a time people will definitely remember for the rest of human history. i can't help but try and tell people that our country isn't our country any longer. it's not theo or sneakandcavuto that have me fired up. it's the idea that alot of americans feel the same way as theo. this really was a good country full of men who were men. not scared little bitches. now it seems everyone is too scared to say "fuck this shit! this is ours! we are taking it back!" Dude, shut the fuck up...first you dont know me...Yes I work for the goverment, so what its a job..I'm not a politician just a trigger man I feel the same way you do about are current goverment, its fucked up and going to hell but who can you blame? The people voted for this asshole?!! In order to keep are country great we need to vote, we need to change the policies that where made...rasing an army is not going to change shit Do you have military training?? Do you know military tactics and training?? Most of these milita motherfuckers when it comes down to it dont stand a chance against the goverment and their "agents". That is why the whole pitch forks and torches shit aint going to work What we need is not fighters but brilliant political minds to change the system from the inside and not be bought off or not have the balls to stand up for the true American System. We dont need guns we need a total mind change of the American people to give a fuck about what is going around them and to vote, scream, and get motivated to do something about it.. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 sneakandcreep: i think you misconstrued what i was saying. i'm not about overthrowing our government by "traditional" means. i want exactly the opposite. i think the citizens should show our govt. that we do mean business when they fuck with our established system (established by the people who originally set it up). yes, you work for the government. great! i happen to think you have a pretty good outlook on life and are a good thing for our government to employ. there are alot like you. well meaning, respectable people. awesome. it's been coming to this "head" for a long time now. it's almost to a point where you may be asked to do some things that you did not sign up for. as are police, military, etc. alot are going to go along with it out of sense of duty. they are going to think it's the right thing to do to protect our freedoms....the thing is, we only have one right left. one. that is correct. under 6166 we no longer have the bill of rights in its entirety. you remember this. "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 this is a great law. i'm glad. it's directed at terrorists. if you're not a terrorist or aren't linked to terrorist activities you have nothing to worry about. the end. No it's not. It's aimed at desenting Americans under the guise of getting the "terrorists". That's why it's on some KGB drag you off to be tortured, locked up indefinately without any form of legal counsil or any contact with the world, never to be heard from again shit. If you're a political activist or even a jounalist making too much noise and stepping on the wrong toes, or even some dude on the internet saying the wrong shit, what's to stop you from being dissapeared? And how is anybody supposed to come to your defense when nobody knows what happened to you? For all they know you're dead in a field somewhere and they have no idea what realy is happening to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 i just recorded and uploaded this for you guys http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7281005232779455137 thank goodness we still have a few good journalists. not all of them are schills for the govt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Oh fuck yes! That's what we need more of from our media. Thank you Casek! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 "You're a complete moron." you said it, not me. seriously bro, do some research. which president was on watch and wire tapped citizens, bombed iraq, waged unconstitutional wars, tortured burned alive and assaulted dozens of US citizens, passed legislation eroding civil liberties, betrayed his constitutional oath, conducted IRS records searches and monitored civilians email AND passed legislation that can claim US citizens to be a terrorist by the FBI and CIA? if you said Billary Clinton, (before you said GW) move to the front of the class. be sure to check on clintons wire taps : echelon and others Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996- this is a watered down patriot act. cant forget kosovo and his other bombing campaigns and most importantly, never forget: if you are going to hate government atrocities, rights violations, etc, atleast hate them all. you damn hypocrite. Oops you forgot the worst thing Clinton did. He deregulated the media, making the wonderful consolidated propaganda machine that passes for the press these days possible. Yeah! But hey, you probably approve of that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 From what I remember Waco was Janet Renos call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 there is alot of blame to go around on waco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 how did they vote on HR 6166? find out here http://www.bordc.org/involved/concerned/votingrecords_detail.php?bill=16 republicans voted yes. overwhelmingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 From what I remember about Clinton is he was a pretty decent cat as far as politicians go. I could never picture him being that type. Nor could I picture him doing any of the shit Bush is doing as far as dismanteling America. AOD, are you sure it wasn't George Bush-sr that started the whole NSA spying and tapping everybodys phones thing? Cause I coulda swore I heard about that shit in the early 90's and people were dismissing it as "conspiracy mumbo-jumbo". Now 15 years later all the "conspiracy mumbo-jumbo" is known to be a fact and is now accepted and even embraced by the same people that denounced it as bullshit that would never happen in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 i'm sure he's sure. it was indeed clinton. bush sr. did alot fo shady shit, too...that goes all the way back to when kennedy was president. you see, this whole "thing" goes back alot further than people know. not just "ECHELON". that was back in the 70's when that program was started. clinton set up the NSA offices in ma bell, etc. Bush just reauthorized it. it was in no way new. and if you still think clinton was a decent guy, look up the mena arkansas incident(s). or ask smart about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 clinton was a scumbag, but a wolf in sheeps clothing scumbag. bush and his clique are straight up wolves. alot of people on the right always bring up clinton as some sort of excuse that bush really isn't that bad. why stop at clinton? bush sr., reagan...shit's been triflin' for decades. now this shit is bad enough, but with the neo-cointelpro on anti-war activists going down on a regular basis in conjunction with the bush cliques cringe-inducing rhetoric it's gettin' a little bit freaky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3592217964261572444 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 i didn't ever think i'd say this to anyone else and mean it, but you are a bad american. our forefathers are rolling in their graves. you are buying into the propaganda. you and the other 30% of america. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: i'm sorry but i really did bust up laughing. dude said "you are a bad american." :lol: and by 30% i'm assuming you're refferring to bush's approximate approval rating? sorry but i have taken part in some of those polls and have always selected the "disapprove" rating ever since the iraq war. just because i disapprove of bush doesn't mean i think EVERY DECISION he's ever made was a bad one. "timmy, stay away from that man over there. he's a bad american." wait here it comes... :lol: p.s. let me just state again that this was a great bill and will be great laws. terrorists deserve no leeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Oops you forgot the worst thing Clinton did. He deregulated the media, making the wonderful consolidated propaganda machine that passes for the press these days possible. Yeah! But hey, you probably approve of that one. shed some light on this. i dont get what your saying. was the media nationalized or something then clinton denationalized it? me=confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: i'm sorry but i really did bust up laughing. dude said "you are a bad american." :lol: and by 30% i'm assuming you're refferring to bush's approximate approval rating? sorry but i have taken part in some of those polls and have always selected the "disapprove" rating ever since the iraq war. just because i disapprove of bush doesn't mean i think EVERY DECISION he's ever made was a bad one. "timmy, stay away from that man over there. he's a bad american." wait here it comes... :lol: p.s. let me just state again that this was a great bill and will be great laws. terrorists deserve no leeway. wow. see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: i'm sorry but i really did bust up laughing. dude said "you are a bad american." :lol: and by 30% i'm assuming you're refferring to bush's approximate approval rating? sorry but i have taken part in some of those polls and have always selected the "disapprove" rating ever since the iraq war. just because i disapprove of bush doesn't mean i think EVERY DECISION he's ever made was a bad one. "timmy, stay away from that man over there. he's a bad american." wait here it comes... :lol: p.s. let me just state again that this was a great bill and will be great laws. terrorists deserve no leeway. It aint even going to be terrorists that get hauled off and tortured. It's going to be disedents you dumb ass. American citizens that speak out against the government. Jesus Christ, get a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 shed some light on this. i dont get what your saying. was the media nationalized or something then clinton denationalized it? me=confused. There used to more stringent laws governing how many newspapers, tv stations, radio stations and other media outlets one company could own in a particular market. These laws pretty much guaranteed many independent voices in each city in America. Now, with deregulation, one company can own all of the media outlets in one city, even many of the media outlets across the entire country. In the past decade, as a result, many newspapers have been bought out by large media conglomerates, big non-media oriented companies have been able to buy TV stations, such as the Disney company taking over ABC, and we have seen a huge reduction in the number of voices in the media. Some of the old established media companies have weathered the storm and stayed independent, such as the New York Times, but it is a disturbing situation nonetheless. That being said, we can all be thankful for the rise of Internet media, which has the potential to balance out the media conglomerates. But it is a shame that many people are still basing their views on news stories they get from convential media, who have to some extent abandoned their duty to be independent critics in favor of sensationalism and self-serving "real news" that serves the interests of the parent company rather than the people. This website has some more specifics. http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=202_0_3_0_C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 hey 12oz name: im curious. do you consider militias of the 90's or dissidents during the clinton era to be bad? just curious because you were acting like clinton was a saint earlier. rock on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I never thought Clinton was a saint. I voted for him in 92, I didn't vote for him in 96. Clinton did almost as many bad things for America as Bush and Reagan did. As far as militias go, they are completely in line with what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd ammendment. The second ammendment was not written so that people could defend their homes from robbers with AK's, it was written so that armed militias could be mustered to defend the citizenry from the tyranny of the government. In my opinion, organizations such as the Michigan Militia and the Black Panthers used arms in a way that is perfectly inline with the language and spirit of the second ammendment. That being said, I am a firm believer in a wider interpretation of the second ammendent that applies these rights to individual citizens. The NRA is right when they say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. In other words, if you want an M-16 to protect your house, more power to you! I've always wanted a Glock 17L myself, for target shooting, but I would never use a gun for home defense. People are entitled to it, but many of them are probably more likely to kill a family member than a robber. Anyways, my stuff isn't so important that I would have to kill someone over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 holy shit, russell and I agree on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 You may find that we agree on more than just that AOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 hey 12oz name: im curious. do you consider militias of the 90's or dissidents during the clinton era to be bad? just curious because you were acting like clinton was a saint earlier. rock on No I don't. But that's one example of who's going to be labeled "enemy combatant". I also didn't say that Clinton was a saint, I just remember him being a fairly good president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetodestro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I never thought Clinton was a saint. I voted for him in 92, I didn't vote for him in 96. Clinton did almost as many bad things for America as Bush and Reagan did. As far as militias go, they are completely in line with what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd ammendment. The second ammendment was not written so that people could defend their homes from robbers with AK's, it was written so that armed militias could be mustered to defend the citizenry from the tyranny of the government. In my opinion, organizations such as the Michigan Militia and the Black Panthers used arms in a way that is perfectly inline with the language and spirit of the second ammendment. That being said, I am a firm believer in a wider interpretation of the second ammendent that applies these rights to individual citizens. The NRA is right when they say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. In other words, if you want an M-16 to protect your house, more power to you! I've always wanted a Glock 17L myself, for target shooting, but I would never use a gun for home defense. People are entitled to it, but many of them are probably more likely to kill a family member than a robber. Anyways, my stuff isn't so important that I would have to kill someone over it. Truth. Although I'd probably blast someone if I awoke to find them in my house. Gotta protect the famly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.