Election of 2012....Who ya got?

Page 26 of 49 First ... 2425262728 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Fareed Zakaria, is actually a highly educated/bright guy. I'd say his opinion is actually informed as opposed to some others.
    Of course he is very educated, but that is no indicator of a persons intentions (Mao Tse Tung is educated). Fareed is a part of the corporate elite underground. He is a Council of Foreign Relations member as the top secret Bilderberg group and supports the elimination of the constutition and sovereignty of the United States to a World Government. Also want to mention he is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He is the mouthpiece of the most evil people currently on the planet and an enemy of this country.
    This message was paid for by the Russians


  2. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Of course he is very educated, but that is no indicator of a persons intentions (Mao Tse Tung is educated). Fareed is a part of the corporate elite underground. He is a Council of Foreign Relations member as the top secret Bilderberg group and supports the elimination of the constutition and sovereignty of the United States to a World Government. Also want to mention he is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He is the mouthpiece of the most evil people currently on the planet and an enemy of this country.

    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/
    LOL!

    Reps..
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  4. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You deem him evil because he holds an opposing view? Lol okay. I actually happen to agree with him, guess I'm evil too. Since you're "one of those" conspiracy theorists, just figured I'd tell you that I'm working on rebuilding the deathstar. :/
    No, not because of his view but because of his memberships and connections. Your not evil, you are not affilitated with the people he is affilitated with.

    Im not a conspiracy theorist, I hate conspiracy theories.

    Anyways the Bilderberger group Council of foreign relations are a part of the corporate elite who are economically destroying the USA and controlling Washington and I can assure you they have no interest in you or the sovereignty of this country.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  5. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    No, not because of his view but because of his memberships and connections. Your not evil, you are not affilitated with the people he is affilitated with.

    Im not a conspiracy theorist, I hate conspiracy theories.

    Anyways the Bilderberger group Council of foreign relations are a part of the corporate elite who are economically destroying the USA and controlling Washington and I can assure you they have no interest in you or the sovereignty of this country.
    How much Glenn Beck can one guy possibly watch? You know he holds about the same amount of education, as the guy who changed my tire last week...just saying.

    FYI- For a guy who claims not to be into conspiracy theories, no offense, you post the wackiest youtube videos made by some guy in his mom's basement.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    How much Glenn Beck can one guy possibly watch? You know he holds about the same amount of education, as the guy who changed my tire last week...just saying.
    I dislike Glenn Beck as well as much as I dislike Fareed. They are both evil.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  7. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    How much Glenn Beck can one guy possibly watch? You know he holds about the same amount of education, as the guy who changed my tire last week...just saying.

    FYI- For a guy who claims not to be into conspiracy theories, no offense, you post the wackiest youtube videos made by some guy in his mom's basement.
    lol, relax man I wish you get to know me a little better. I dont want any one to believe what I say in the first place. I only present issues and want people to do their own research and make their own conclusions. If they disagree with me I welcome that and I love it when people ask questions about the issues, and present different sides of the story.

    My only issue is when people brand people a "conspiracy theorist" or associate me with people I totally dislike such as Glenn Beck as a easy way to discredit the issues I put forth on the table. I do not for example consider you evil for agreeing with Fareed's views, I only judge people on their personal intent. I have no doubt in my mind Southpaw that your intentions are good, but please dont attack people on the board specifically and brand them a certain label or slogan as a way to discredit the issues they spend so much time trying to lay on the table.

    All Im saying is attack the issues not each other
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  8. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    All Im saying is attack the issues not each other
    that is a piece of the tactics of the controlling groups. paste labels on each other, so everyone disregards any voice of sense for reasons other than the data presented.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    lol, relax man I wish you get to know me a little better. I dont want any one to believe what I say in the first place. I only present issues and want people to do their own research and make their own conclusions. If they disagree with me I welcome that and I love it when people ask questions about the issues, and present different sides of the story.

    My only issue is when people brand people a "conspiracy theorist" or associate me with people I totally dislike such as Glenn Beck as a easy way to discredit the issues I put forth on the table. I do not for example consider you evil for agreeing with Fareed's views, I only judge people on their personal intent. I have no doubt in my mind Southpaw that your intentions are good, but please dont attack people on the board specifically and brand them a certain label or slogan as a way to discredit the issues they spend so much time trying to lay on the table.
    Fair enough and I wasn't attacking you personally (I don't know you outside of a forum), it was more so your consistent use of obscure youtube videos, that you deem as "evidence" of something, and using words like "evil" to describe certain people, which will invite some form of criticism. For the record, I am very liberal and no I don't own a shark tank, or have them outfitted with laser beams on their heads. I usually stay out of these political threads, as I realized early on that these political forums are comprised of 99.9% Tim Tebowers, if you get where I'm going with that. Anyway hope all is well man.

  10. Somebody show me where the Constitution is the cause of this jacked up tax code...I hope ur not referring to the 16th amendment because that stupid amendment was added by an extreme socialist back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had every intention of advancing socialism and uprooting capitalism.

    Its time people start putting their money where their mouth is. Show us explicitly where the Constitution is wrong! I'm also well educated but particularly on the matter about the Constitution. The original document (not amendments) actually outlines an equal or "flat" taxation system. Its the very first allowance the Constitution gives the Federal government. It can be found in Article 1 Section 8, where the role of the federal government is located...

    As I said before, I think the issue is not whether u stand with or against the Constitution but rather if you've read the actual document or not. The document itself is the fairest of them all and if we pull away from it we're not going to be America anymore. We'll just be another socialist country with a failing economy...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Somebody show me where the Constitution is the cause of this jacked up tax code...I hope ur not referring to the 16th amendment because that stupid amendment was added by an extreme socialist back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had every intention of advancing socialism and uprooting capitalism.

    Its time people start putting their money where their mouth is. Show us explicitly where the Constitution is wrong! I'm also well educated but particularly on the matter about the Constitution. The original document (not amendments) actually outlines an equal or "flat" taxation system. Its the very first allowance the Constitution gives the Federal government. It can be found in Article 1 Section 8, where the role of the federal government is located...

    As I said before, I think the issue is not whether u stand with or against the Constitution but rather if you've read the actual document or not. The document itself is the fairest of them all and if we pull away from it we're not going to be America anymore. We'll just be another socialist country with a failing economy...
    First......this thread took an interesting turn. I have been to a CFR speech previously. Truly, nothing of mention went on, and I was not indoctrinated in anything.....or was I

    Fueled, you can make the specific requirements not amendments. The dcoument as a whole is what is in discussion. So yes, even the nonsense of Wilson is up for discussion, and yes, it outlines a terrible flaw in the system.

    Furthermore, to me I think the 2nd amendment is a problem. The vague nature destroys its validity. By putting it in, it is taken out of any 10th amendment consideration. So we look at federally (in essence) and because it is so vague, we are stuck with defining militia, safety of a free state, etc...

    It is not a perfect document, and to be honest, is not the end all for the 21st century.
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  12. Btw that second video actually presented some decent amendments. But understand something folks...amendments are put in place TO EVENTUALLY BE CHANGED AND REVISED. The Articles of the Constitution are NOT to be changed. Furthermore, if an amendment contradicts the articles then it should be removed because it renders the most important aspects of our government structure (the articles) useless.

    Otherwise amendments are gtg, IMO. I personally think we should limit all seats in congress to 6 years to stop career politicians.

  13. But does that mean I shouldnt hunt anymore? And does that means I cant defend my family against physical threats from thieves and criminals that break into my home? Can I not have a concealed weapon permit to protect myself from the criminals who dont live by the laws anyways? I feel taking the second amendment away just disarms the upright and innocent. It doesnt do jack for the criminals - they'll still carry weapons and use them against harmless people. Where does the line get drawn?

    I have lots of guns, but none of them are primarily weapons. However, if there was ever an invasion in our country or a civil war, people would be coming to my place to survive since I have the guns, the ammo, and the reloading stations as well and a good heart to protect innocent men and women. I could make a stand for at least a few years if I needed to...

  14. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    But does that mean I shouldnt hunt anymore? And does that means I cant defend my family against physical threats from thieves and criminals that break into my home? Can I not have a concealed weapon permit to protect myself from the criminals who dont live by the laws anyways? I feel taking the second amendment away just disarms the upright and innocent. It doesnt do jack for the criminals - they'll still carry weapons and use them against harmless people. Where does the line get drawn?

    I have lots of guns, but none of them are primarily weapons. However, if there was ever an invasion in our country or a civil war, people would be coming to my place to survive since I have the guns, the ammo, and the reloading stations as well and a good heart to protect innocent men and women. I could make a stand for at least a few years if I needed to...
    I understand your sentiment, however it doesn't address the issue. The fact is, 2nd amend. is vague and difficult one way or the other. I do understand how the Courts have found, but as always, they have contradicted themselves time and again.

    My point is....certain aspects of the Constitution create more problems than they should.
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  15. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I understand your sentiment, however it doesn't address the issue. The fact is, 2nd amend. is vague and difficult one way or the other. I do understand how the Courts have found, but as always, they have contradicted themselves time and again.

    My point is....certain aspects of the Constitution create more problems than they should.
    1000% agreed.

  16. The problems of today are not the flaws of the constitution but its systematic removal as a whole.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  17. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    The problems of today are not the flaws of the constitution but its systematic removal as a whole.
    Dont agree entirely. I think your statement is an issue in part, however, it is sometimes not applicable to the modern world. Our founding "parents" could not have foreseen the issues of the 21st century, and did the best they could to assist is mediating them. However, foresight goes only so far
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  18. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Dont agree entirely. I think your statement is an issue in part, however, it is sometimes not applicable to the modern world. Our founding "parents" could not have foreseen the issues of the 21st century, and did the best they could to assist is mediating them. However, foresight goes only so far
    We can deal these issues without taking away peoples liberties and installing a complete and total police state of legalized spying (patriot act,) detaining of Americans without access to a lawyer or trial indefinitely (NDAA act), completely changing the governments structure of government with unelected officials (Super Committee), income tax, decreased sovreignty of the states with expansion of federal powers, going to wars without even consulting congress, the private Federal Reserve banking cartel and the elimination of the gold/silver backed currency, ok enough with the run-on ax your typing to a school teacher here, lol.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  19. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Dont agree entirely. I think your statement is an issue in part, however, it is sometimes not applicable to the modern world. Our founding "parents" could not have foreseen the issues of the 21st century, and did the best they could to assist is mediating them. However, foresight goes only so far
    Even given there are issues that they didn't foresee, their model was based on individual states attempting to fix those things, not an overreaching federal government. And when a state in attempting to fix those intruded on the rights (or created bias against products from) another state, that was the point at which the federal government was supposed to become involved.

    The larger the country has become, the more valid that point has become rather than the reverse.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Even given there are issues that they didn't foresee, their model was based on individual states attempting to fix those things, not an overreaching federal government. And when a state in attempting to fix those intruded on the rights (or created bias against products from) another state, that was the point at which the federal government was supposed to become involved.

    The larger the country has become, the more valid that point has become rather than the reverse.
    Exactly which is what I have been trying to say for the past few days lol. I dont get why its so hard to understand...

    The problem with the constitution being outdated or up for modifications would never have happened had the federal government followed the structure layed out for them, which was simply to be a mediator between states and a defense against enemies of the states. Period. It all got complicated when socialist movements started occurring and the feds took away state's power thru a series of unforunate turn of events like 17th amendment, abusing the power under the ITC act, etc...

  21. Except in the case of, Jan Brewer, an overachieving 2 year community college graduate turned governor, who's social agenda is sought after in the guise of enacting state "law", in my humble opinion, individuals like this need to be checked. A woman who would otherwise be tasked with ordering printer cartridges if she wasn't voted in as governor, requires broad supervision.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Except in the case of, Jan Brewer, an overachieving 2 year community college graduate turned governor, who's social agenda is sought after in the guise of enacting state "law", in my humble opinion, individuals like this need to be checked. A woman who would otherwise be tasked with ordering printer cartridges if she wasn't voted in as governor, requires broad supervision.
    Again, just like with the president, the governor of a state doesn't pass any laws, just signs them....

    The state's own legislature and residents are the check. Because you happen to dislike a law doesn't mean that a majority of the state's residents dislike it.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    We can deal these issues without taking away peoples liberties and installing a complete and total police state of legalized spying (patriot act,) detaining of Americans without access to a lawyer or trial indefinitely (NDAA act), completely changing the governments structure of government with unelected officials (Super Committee), income tax, decreased sovreignty of the states with expansion of federal powers, going to wars without even consulting congress, the private Federal Reserve banking cartel and the elimination of the gold/silver backed currency, ok enough with the run-on ax your typing to a school teacher here, lol.
    dont worry about the run ons

    alot of the things you mentioned have been done before....hell Lincoln wiped his a$$ with the constitution, yet no one bats an eye. Again, show me the police state that you live in....
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  24. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Again, just like with the president, the governor of a state doesn't pass any laws, just signs them....

    The state's own legislature and residents are the check. Because you happen to dislike a law doesn't mean that a majority of the state's residents dislike it.
    And residents don't have an immediate impact, once a law(s) is enacted, until the next election cycle, often the "check" comes much later and at a steep price. I understand how state government and federal government operate.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Mdrol 53426 Oct.2012
    By Nova1723 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
  2. M-DROL batch 52707 MAY 2012.
    By supra888 in forum Cycle Logs
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 06:08 AM
  3. Ordering A Pizza In 2012
    By purebred in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 08:08 AM
  4. Letter from 2012 in Obama's America
    By David Dunn in forum Politics
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Log in
Log in