Print Page | Close Window

..whos voting for Hussein Obama

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Firearms, Bows, and Ammunition
Forum Name: Firearms
Forum Description: All makes, models and uses
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9971
Printed Date: December/04/2022 at 07:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: ..whos voting for Hussein Obama
Posted By: texashunter
Subject: ..whos voting for Hussein Obama
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 13:57

http://patdollard.com/2008/02/hussein-1998-ban-sale-or-transfer-of-all-semi-automatic-weapons/ - Hussein 1998: “Ban Sale Or Transfer Of All Semi-Automatic Weapons”

http://patdollard.com/2008/02/hussein-1998-ban-sale-or-transfer-of-all-semi-automatic-weapons/ - http://patdollard.com/2008/02/hussein-1998-ban-sale-or-transfer-of-all-semi-automatic-weapons/




Replies:
Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:19
No difference between him and Hildabeast. Both will seek to further destroy the Constitution to further their agendas.

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:19
of course they will donkey party does that sort of stuff you know

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:24
What scares me more than anything is that they might even try to pass a law where the Incumbent President can stay as long as they want to, and pass it to whom ever they want to. For those of you that think otherwise look at what else they are doing with the Constitution and the way that they will usurp it's authority.

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:25
wouldnt that suck?

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:29
Oh that's a serious understatement............. Civil War part II coming to a neighborhood near you..................Evil%20Black%20Rifle

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 14:48
      Tank Osama Obama; Hillary50%20Cal

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 16:42
Look at Ron Paul, he follows the constitution more than anyone. He is the only one that isnt talking about spending more money. I know the media gives him a bad rep but look at his stance on issues, he is more conservative than anyother candidate. Ronald reagan even campaigned for Dr.Paul when he was running for congress for the district I live in. Our district is very conservative and wants as little government as possible in their lives.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com - www.ronpaul2008.com


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 17:45
Originally posted by texashunter texashunter wrote:

Look at Ron Paul, he follows the constitution more than anyone. He is the only one that isnt talking about spending more money. I know the media gives him a bad rep but look at his stance on issues, he is more conservative than anyother candidate. Ronald reagan even campaigned for Dr.Paul when he was running for congress for the district I live in. Our district is very conservative and wants as little government as possible in their lives.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com - www.ronpaul2008.com
..............................You can look at Ron Paul and that`s it!!.........Not going anywhere! Not going to be the nominee! Not enough delegates! ZIP!..........Agree with his domestic stuff. But he is whacked out on foreign policy. In that dept. "its all America`s fault"............Nevermind we liberated millions in Afganistan and millions in Iraq! Nevermind the surge is defintely working.....Nevermind that Saddam would have re-constituted his nuclear and biological ambitions had we not gone in there! Nevermind Saddam`s violations of 17 UN resolutions since the first Gulf war. Nevermind his 25k support in funds to the families of each suicide bomber!...............Nevermind all that and alot more!!.....Ron Paul is a conservative on domestic issues,,,,but a damned, appeasing and spineless liberal on foreign policy! 

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 18:17
Ron Paul is not in win place or show. GROW UP!  It is too late for Ron Paul and has been for months! Move on and get a life.

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 18:22
I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 18:27
I'm an AWM and have no choice but to vote for McCain. Not good, but far better than the alternative.


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 19:31
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

I'm an AWM and have no choice but to vote for McCain. Not good, but far better than the alternative.
 
AWM?
Anarchist
Wiccian
Minister????????????
 
Hippie


-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: February/22/2008 at 23:45
..............................You can look at Ron Paul and that`s it!!.........Not going anywhere! Not going to be the nominee! Not enough delegates! ZIP!..........Agree with his domestic stuff. But he is whacked out on foreign policy. In that dept. "its all America`s fault"............Nevermind we liberated millions in Afganistan and millions in Iraq! Nevermind the surge is defintely working.....Nevermind that Saddam would have re-constituted his nuclear and biological ambitions had we not gone in there! Nevermind Saddam`s violations of 17 UN resolutions since the first Gulf war. Nevermind his 25k support in funds to the families of each suicide bomber!...............Nevermind all that and alot more!!.....Ron Paul is a conservative on domestic issues,,,,but a damned, appeasing and spineless liberal on foreign policy! [/QUOTE]

Well this is where the republican party lost their way, IT is a liberal foreign policy to go and liberate people for the sake of letting them live like us ( vietnam, korea, black hawk down) all republicans elected to get us out of those conflicts. Please do not get me started on the UN. We should not be in the UN and definitely not go to war over it.
It should be noted Dr.Paul gets more donations from the active military than another candidate combined including many of my friends who are fighting over there!
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/51073 (go tell the soldiers to get a life)

Bush had it right in 2000 (the true conservative message) http://youtube.com/watch?v=JX-FiXTgKFo


Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: February/23/2008 at 00:00
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......



...your not a constitutionalist

Look at his voting record compared to the constitution, He has a 100% Constitutionally correct voting record



Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/23/2008 at 03:19
Originally posted by texashunter texashunter wrote:

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......



...your not a constitutionalist

Look at his voting record compared to the constitution, He has a 100% Constitutionally correct voting record

........................I have no quarrels with Ron Paul domestically or his belief in what the Constitution is and should be!......His problem is to pretend that evil does not exist, stick our heads in a hole and hope we never get hit again!...........50% or so of the American people are absolutely so naive when it comes to terrorism and its threats....IF ONLY WE WOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE; THEY WOULD LEAVE US ALONE??.... B.S!!!!...While we try and make peace, they would be planning their next attack!!.....That`s what liberals do; APPEASE AND NEGOTIATE WITH EVIL; RATHER THAN CONFRONT IT AND DESTROY IT!.........THAT MY FRIEND,,,,,,,IS YOUR RON PAUL!!!!......NO THANKS!!!LocoLocoLocoLocoLoco  

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/23/2008 at 08:17
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

I'm an AWM and have no choice but to vote for McCain. Not good, but far better than the alternative.
 Now you have that right.  Duncan Hunter long gone and Romney out of the race for all technical purposes and lets face it, Ron Paul is a whack job (all over the board on gun control, hard to pin him down), McCain is the only person we can vote for.  I wish there was more in the way of campaign reform, so that candidates like Duncan Hunter could have an equal stake, monetarily, to be a viable candidate from the start, but without doling out money to every person who thinks they want to run for president.


-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 10:38
America is in deep cowsh*t this year.  Whatever    It just keeps getting WORSE.


Posted By: martin3175
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 11:41
Originally posted by Ed Connelly Ed Connelly wrote:

America is in deep cowsh*t this year.  Whatever    It just keeps getting WORSE.
 
I second that


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 12:33
Originally posted by Ed Connelly Ed Connelly wrote:

America is in deep cowsh*t this year.  Whatever    It just keeps getting WORSE.
 
I believe that is animal bio-mass that promotes growth and change; Comrade Ed.


-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: Redfield63
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 14:12
..sure not me,,in WV..sorry ObamaBandito


Posted By: lucytuma
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 16:10
McCain, plain and simple.


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 22:43
Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

Originally posted by texashunter texashunter wrote:

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......



...your not a constitutionalist

Look at his voting record compared to the constitution, He has a 100% Constitutionally correct voting record

........................I have no quarrels with Ron Paul domestically or his belief in what the Constitution is and should be!......His problem is to pretend that evil does not exist, stick our heads in a hole and hope we never get hit again!...........50% or so of the American people are absolutely so naive when it comes to terrorism and its threats....IF ONLY WE WOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE; THEY WOULD LEAVE US ALONE??.... B.S!!!!...While we try and make peace, they would be planning their next attack!!.....That`s what liberals do; APPEASE AND NEGOTIATE WITH EVIL; RATHER THAN CONFRONT IT AND DESTROY IT!.........THAT MY FRIEND,,,,,,,IS YOUR RON PAUL!!!!......NO THANKS!!!LocoLocoLocoLocoLoco  


Pretend evil doesn't exist? He approved the war in Afghanistan because it was a defensive war in response to the 9/11 attacks. To start war when a country has not attacked us is unconstitutional and immoral. Iraq had not attacked us. Preemptive wars to deal with potential threats are not good foreign policy and hypocritical. When do we deal with Iran, North Korea, China, and god only knows how many other countries, hostile to America and its values, that are developing the types of weapons programs we had to kill Saddam for?

Our foreign policy is failing. If nothing else it requires increased taxes and strips us of our Freedom here at home. I could give a sh*t less about the people who don't live in America and if I have to risk a terrorist attack in order to be truly free then by god, give me liberty or give me death, as they say. Correcting a failing policy is not appeasement.

McCain will win the nomination, but he's about as conservative as my H.S. art teacher. At least in the primaries I can vote for the man I want (Dr. Paul) without it splitting the Republican vote and result in a Democrat in office. I'll vote for the GOP this fall, but right now I vote for my ideals; Freedom.


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 22:56
Originally posted by texashunter texashunter wrote:

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......



...your not a constitutionalist

Look at his voting record compared to the constitution, He has a 100% Constitutionally correct voting record

OH REALLY????????????
I suppose that believing in protecting this Country from possible and very REAL threats, that are over seas and on this very continent as well is uncostitutional????????
That makes absolutely no sense at all........... To hear you tell it anyone that is not in line with your view is UNCONSTITUTIONAL......... Ron Paul is in many ways a fantastic candidate............. I will not however lend my vote to anyone that lacks the stomach to do the job that is necessary to insure the long term safety of this Country........... I also believe in DOCUMENTING immigrants. Would you have open borders in this day and age, with so many that would destroy us? That is foolish, I am no ones fool, least of all someone that claims to be a COSTITUTIONALLY accurate candidate, and blindly allow the threats to this Country in and welcome them at that..............My idea of a welcoming party for these individuals is the fireworks that come from the muzzle blast of an AMERICAN held gun. STATES RIGHTS IS CONSTITUTIONAL, Where has that concept gone?
FREE and OPEN BORDERS and an antiwar stance is not a CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated concept.
Since when is it Constitutionally wrong to be at war with our enemies, or to fight for freedom for others for that matter?
YOU SIR are DEAD WRONG on these issues as is Mr Paul............
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As such I have fought for the rights of people to be self loathing and to hate this Country as well............. WHERE SIR DO YOU STAND?
I suppose then also that to have a military is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
To use it for the protection of our sovereignty is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
HMMMMMMMMMMMM........... I guess being PATRIOTIC is also then UNCONSTITUTIONAL????
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK AGAIN SIR, especially before you start saying that I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONALIST!!!!!!!


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 23:05
Fighting foreign wars is not defending our own borders. Hell yes we need to document immigrants and secure our borders. A country without secure borders is no country at all. There are threats overseas. China, Korea and Iran are great examples, yet you don't find us going to war with them. For one, it makes no sense (just as Iraq didn't, but the administration pushed for it beyond reason) and for another thing, its immoral. Strictly speaking we can launch aggressive wars, but since war is supposed to be declared by Congress it is very rare that we would have an aggressive war if the Constitution was obeyed.

Did you know we have troops in over 130 countries? From Afghanistan to Australia, France to Japan, they're defending everyone but America. If we had troops on our borders, in our airports and at our docks we wouldn't have illegal immigration, that's for sure. The thing is, the 9/11 terrorists were documented. And there's little you can do to stop actions like those unless you support things like the so-called 'Patriot' Act, stripping us of many of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If you want to live in a police state like so many of the countries we occupy, by all means, let your Freedoms dissipate, but I won't stand for it.

Many have taken an oath to office, swearing to defend this country and it’s Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic. It is the latter we should be most worried about. A foreign threat is easy enough to spot and guard against. This or that army, the rhetoric of this communist or fascist leader, we see these and seek to protect ourselves. However, we fail to look at ourselves, or rather, those we have elected. These are the greatest threats for they have tasted the prestige, power and joys of public office. They seek to retain them, and not to retain the Freedom of the individual.



Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 23:33
Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

Fighting foreign wars is not defending our own borders. Hell yes we need to document immigrants and secure our borders. A country without secure borders is no country at all. There are threats overseas. China, Korea and Iran are great examples, yet you don't find us going to war with them. For one, it makes no sense (just as Iraq didn't, but the administration pushed for it beyond reason) and for another thing, its immoral. Strictly speaking we can launch aggressive wars, but since war is supposed to be declared by Congress it is very rare that we would have an aggressive war if the Constitution was obeyed.

Did you know we have troops in over 130 countries? From Afghanistan to Australia, France to Japan, they're defending everyone but America. If we had troops on our borders, in our airports and at our docks we wouldn't have illegal immigration, that's for sure. The thing is, the 9/11 terrorists were documented. And there's little you can do to stop actions like those unless you support things like the so-called 'Patriot' Act, stripping us of many of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If you want to live in a police state like so many of the countries we occupy, by all means, let your Freedoms dissipate, but I won't stand for it.

Many have taken an oath to office, swearing to defend this country and it’s Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic. It is the latter we should be most worried about. A foreign threat is easy enough to spot and guard against. This or that army, the rhetoric of this communist or fascist leader, we see these and seek to protect ourselves. However, we fail to look at ourselves, or rather, those we have elected. These are the greatest threats for they have tasted the prestige, power and joys of public office. They seek to retain them, and not to retain the Freedom of the individual.

I certainly agree with the CAREER POLITICIAN thing, it was NEVER intended that politicians seek out a career in public DIS-SERVICE........ That is one of the very things that Franklin warned about.
The Patriot act is wrong, I agree, but only in so far as HOW it could be used against the citizens. I think that VISA's are wrong. IF we as a people get rid of the undocumented here then the PATRIOT ACT would not be necessary. 
The troops in other Countries is necessary, whether you like it or not. That is one way to keep it from getting to this Country.
Get rid of the BS socialist wealth redistribution and we can have a military presence here, like is needed.
Get rid of the handcuffs that are placed on the CITIZENS of this Country and give them back the right to be PERSONALLY responsible, and alot of the foolishness will stop.
Furthermore the IRAQ war was declared, why else would so many that are saying I VOTED AGAINST IT be saying that?
I don't agree with weapons bans either, Constitutionally speaking we as citizens would be able to have NUCLEAR WEAPONS. That is not wise though. IS IT?
I do not agree with drug control, if someone wants to abuse drugs and put themselves at risk, that is their business. Until affects the public or another person.  


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/24/2008 at 23:46
Actually, we haven't been in a declared war since WWII. When Congressmen say they voted for or against a war they actually voted for a non-binding and vague resolution that generally says "The President should take any steps necessary to insure country/faction/leader X does not hurt/threaten the national interest." And national interest is something totally contrived and essentially meaningless. Of course, our interest was individual Freedom.

Nuclear weapons also require a tremendous amount of funding, knowledge and technology. It's entirely infeasible for a private citizen to get a hold of one for the same reason that no terrorists have gotten nuclear weapons in to this country. Though, I tend to agree on a personal level such a weapon is unnecessary, I don't think our politicians should be passing legislation to limit our right to bear arms. It's a slippery slope type of thing and we're starting to slide.

So long as one's actions don't inhibit the actions of another there is nothing wrong with them.

We need troops to protect France and Japan? Can't these people, modernized, westernized countries that haven't fought a war in their homeland for nearly fifty years raise a military adequate to provide for the minimal protection they need now a days? In other areas all that policing does is prolong wars. A general and key strategist in Iraq (I can find his name later if you want) said war is a natural action for states to work out disagreements they can't otherwise compromise on. The winner is the one with the force to either make you see things their way, or stop seeing things your way (die). If it is carried out to its natural and complete end, peace is the result. War is fought with the aim of terminating itself. The death and genocide is unfortunate, but at some point that's about all we can hope for in the Middle East. Our involvement simply prolongs the inevitable and has done nothing productive in the past fifty years.

I suppose you believe the terrorists hate us for our freedoms?


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 00:09
No I am a believer in that they despise us for the Moral slipping that has occured in this country. Which in a round about way is due to freedom, and the lack of responsibility, that is supposed to go hand in hand with freedom. Once responsibility is gone so then is freedom. We are seeing it now. Freedom of responsibility, is the absence of freedom. there is more freedom over there than there is here. Sad isn't it?
In so far as Japan and France are concerned, our presence there is what thwarts any threat from them. Like it or not, it is a fact. I don't like it. There are alot of things that I don't like, but I have to see it from the stand point that this country and its citizens are in a perpatual state of threat. The world is a much smaller place today. 
Our biggest problem is that we as a people have lost the will that it takes to be free. We have turned to politicians to solve our problems and those abroad see us as weak because of this. 


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 07:46
The only sad thing about any war is that the very political drivel that starts it, develops a moral conscience somewhere along the line. Then all the "dooo-gooders" who have no idea what the troops on the ground is doing and going through, develop their own conscience. pretty soon the troops, who are doing a damm difficult and dangerous job, is left out to dry. They, who started out as the heros, come home as the villians.
Zanmor, if you do not see the need to defend your own country and to go wherever you need to go to do this, stand aside. There is lots of evil men in other countries who will not hesitate to come across to your side of the pond and to do what is necesarry for their own gain.


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 09:00
I have fought them on their grounds, and if necessary I WILL fight them on mine..... Thank you 8Shots. Once again your wisdom is dead on sir!!!!!!!
Those of you that don't have the stomach for doing what needs be done, atleast have the decency to be grateful for those of us that do.


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 10:16
Zanmor, what planet did you come off of.  We went into Iraq after they refused, if I am correct 31 UN sanctioned inspections for weapons of mass destruction, which that has previously used (gassing the Kurds in the north), despite the threat of entering their country with troops.  Well after 30 false threats, I guess Saddam figured, what the heck, their pulling my leg again.  Thats how we got there in the first place.  All of the sudden, the UN backs away from their on threats to go into Iraq, so who is left to do it.  Besides the point, the UN is nothing more than hide out for communist nations and terrorists who seek asylum and spread their evil word.  NAFTA, the great piece of work pushed through by the great Bill Clinton was worked through the UN.  If a treaty is passed by the UN, signed by the president, it only requires a majority vote in the house and senate to pass.  Guess how NAFTA passed.  Thats how George Soros, Iran, China, Russia and every other communist nation and terrorist wants to ban guns in this country.  So get real, there are some bad people in this country who are completely naive to the issues and you my friend are one of them.  Do you own any guns?  Do you want to keep them?  If asked to serve your country right now, would you?  I am 50 years old with 3 older children, a 1 year old and one on the way and if asked to serve, because my services were needed, I would be there.  My father was in the service and too many to count relatives served in the confederate army.  Like 8 shots said, go elsewhere, maybe France, where they (the government), cannot seem to have the courage to do anything, dating back to WWII.  I love the French people and their wine, so do not take this out of context.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 12:33
Hey Zanmor.......................................To my recollection, GERMANY did not attack us at anytime before WW2!! RIGHT??? The plain difference between you and the rest of us is very simple..............You would rather wait and do nothing until we are attacked again! You sir, would rather trust the terrorists not to go forward with any plans to attack us again. And only if we are attacked again, then strike back????!!!!!..................Let`s see now! Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions; but nevermind that!......He murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraquis; but nevermind that!........Bush went to the UN for two resolutions to try and satisfy his opposition and avoid the war; but nevermind that!......Bush gave Saddam every opportunity to avoid the war; but nevermind that!....... Saddam USED WMD in the north killing 5,000; but nevermind that!.........ALL of the intelligence agencies throughout the world UNANIMOUSLY concluded that he had WMD; but nevermind that!............Saddam gave 25K each to the famalies of the suicide bombers for a job well done; but nevermind that!........Saddam was shooting at our planes in the no fly zone; but nevermind that!.........The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the war; but nevermind that!.........Per several reports, had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam would have re-constituted in WMD ambitions, then selling or giving WMD to terrorist organizations like al-Queda to be used in the USA making 9/11 look like a bake sale; but nevermind that!..............This war was voted on, by both the house and Senate by a clear majority, which does in fact make it VERY constitutional; but nevermind that!.......UN resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam NEEDED to prove and show that he had no WMD and disclose FULLY what he did with them. It WAS NOT up to the U.S. to prove they existed; but nevermind that!.............The UN itself voted by a clear majority in favor for the war; but nevermind that!..........It`s ALL of the same breed of fanatical terrorism, whether in Afganistan, Iraq or in any of the many countries around the world; but nevermind that!................The 1st World Trade Center bombing; nevermind that!........The attack on the USS Cole; nevermind that!..........The two US Embassys destroyed in Africa; nevermind that!.......The Kobart towers attack; nevermind that!...........The bombing attack in Bali killing 200+; but nevermind that!.........The attacks in London and Spain; nevermind those!.........Saddam tried to mislead the weapons inspectors; nevermind that!..........Saddam invaded Kuwait; but what the hell; nevermind that!..........Regardless of any violence, Iraq now is starting to flourish with its economy and things are coming together; slowly but still coming together; nevermind that!............The surge has been working but not reported as to its success by our biased liberal friends in the media; nevermind that!.........Because Saddam violated ALL UN resolutions, THAT in and of itself gave us every right to re-enter Iraq,,,SIR; but nevermind that too!...................So Mr. Zanmor! You go right ahead and keep drinking that liberal KOOL-AID of yours, filled with recipes for do-nothing until we are attacked again and appeasement for those who wish us all dead or conform to their ideaology!...............UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Please show me where it says in the constitution that WE don`t have the right to defend ourselves OR take PREEMPTIVE action if necessary!!!!!!!...........YOU CAN`T; but nevermind that!!!............................LocoLocoLocoLocoLocoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhacko 

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 13:31
Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

Hey Zanmor.......................................To my recollection, GERMANY did not attack us at anytime before WW2!! RIGHT??? The plain difference between you and the rest of us is very simple..............You would rather wait and do nothing until we are attacked again! You sir, would rather trust the terrorists not to go forward with any plans to attack us again. And only if we are attacked again, then strike back????!!!!!..................Let`s see now! Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions; but nevermind that!......He murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraquis; but nevermind that!........Bush went to the UN for two resolutions to try and satisfy his opposition and avoid the war; but nevermind that!......Bush gave Saddam every opportunity to avoid the war; but nevermind that!....... Saddam USED WMD in the north killing 5,000; but nevermind that!.........ALL of the intelligence agencies throughout the world UNANIMOUSLY concluded that he had WMD; but nevermind that!............Saddam gave 25K each to the famalies of the suicide bombers for a job well done; but nevermind that!........Saddam was shooting at our planes in the no fly zone; but nevermind that!.........The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the war; but nevermind that!.........Per several reports, had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam would have re-constituted in WMD ambitions, then selling or giving WMD to terrorist organizations like al-Queda to be used in the USA making 9/11 look like a bake sale; but nevermind that!..............This war was voted on, by both the house and Senate by a clear majority, which does in fact make it VERY constitutional; but nevermind that!.......UN resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam NEEDED to prove and show that he had no WMD and disclose FULLY what he did with them. It WAS NOT up to the U.S. to prove they existed; but nevermind that!.............The UN itself voted by a clear majority in favor for the war; but nevermind that!..........It`s ALL of the same breed of fanatical terrorism, whether in Afganistan, Iraq or in any of the many countries around the world; but nevermind that!................The 1st World Trade Center bombing; nevermind that!........The attack on the USS Cole; nevermind that!..........The two US Embassys destroyed in Africa; nevermind that!.......The Kobart towers attack; nevermind that!...........The bombing attack in Bali killing 200+; but nevermind that!.........The attacks in London and Spain; nevermind those!.........Saddam tried to mislead the weapons inspectors; nevermind that!..........Saddam invaded Kuwait; but what the hell; nevermind that!..........Regardless of any violence, Iraq now is starting to flourish with its economy and things are coming together; slowly but still coming together; nevermind that!............The surge has been working but not reported as to its success by our biased liberal friends in the media; nevermind that!.........Because Saddam violated ALL UN resolutions, THAT in and of itself gave us every right to re-enter Iraq,,,SIR; but nevermind that too!...................So Mr. Zanmor! You go right ahead and keep drinking that liberal KOOL-AID of yours, filled with recipes for do-nothing until we are attacked again and appeasement for those who wish us all dead or conform to their ideaology!...............UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Please show me where it says in the constitution that WE don`t have the right to defend ourselves OR take PREEMPTIVE action if necessary!!!!!!!...........YOU CAN`T; but nevermind that!!!............................LocoLocoLocoLocoLocoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhackoWhacko 
Well said BS.


-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 15:53
Strictly speaking we can launch aggressive wars, but since war is supposed to be declared by Congress it is very rare that we would have an aggressive war if the Constitution was obeyed. An undeclared war (all wars since Korea) is an unconstitutional war.

Germany was allied with Japan, who did attack us. "At the end of September 1940, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact - Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy and Germany formalized the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers - Axis Powers . As a warning to the United States, the pact stipulated that, with the exception of the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three."

What do I care about the Iraqis or Turks or the UN? What's a UN resolution to me, an American? Nothing, that's what. They mess with, not only our sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations on the globe. Why should they make stipulations on Saddam? He wants to fight the rest of the Arab tribes, by all means, I could care less. Democrats voted for the war, whoopy, because Democrats' votes are were I look to for shining examples of defense of our Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.

The U.S. has been attacked by and will continue to be a target of terrorists. This is virtually unavoidable to some extent. However, unless we link them with a government, say Saddam in Iraq, then we have no reason to invade that country. If we had linked 9/11 to Iraq then that bastard deserved to pay for what he brought about on our shores. But we didn't.

You guys admit to the ridiculous nature of the U.N. and the stupidity of Democrats, yet these are your prime examples for why we should go to war. This si why Americans are losing their Freedom.

And to answer a question, yes, if America were attacked again today, I would step up to fight for her defense. This is my homeland and I am proud of it. But not proud simply because we can destroy a third world country or oppress people across the globe and determine how other countries should work, but proud because we were founded on the ideals of individual Liberty and there's still a chance that we might honor that obligation.


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 16:36
Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

Strictly speaking we can launch aggressive wars, but since war is supposed to be declared by Congress it is very rare that we would have an aggressive war if the Constitution was obeyed. An undeclared war (all wars since Korea) is an unconstitutional war.

Germany was allied with Japan, who did attack us. "At the end of September 1940, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact - Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy and Germany formalized the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers - Axis Powers . As a warning to the United States, the pact stipulated that, with the exception of the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three."

What do I care about the Iraqis or Turks or the UN? What's a UN resolution to me, an American? Nothing, that's what. They mess with, not only our sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations on the globe. Why should they make stipulations on Saddam? He wants to fight the rest of the Arab tribes, by all means, I could care less. Democrats voted for the war, whoopy, because Democrats' votes are were I look to for shining examples of defense of our Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.

The U.S. has been attacked by and will continue to be a target of terrorists. This is virtually unavoidable to some extent. However, unless we link them with a government, say Saddam in Iraq, then we have no reason to invade that country. If we had linked 9/11 to Iraq then that bastard deserved to pay for what he brought about on our shores. But we didn't.

You guys admit to the ridiculous nature of the U.N. and the stupidity of Democrats, yet these are your prime examples for why we should go to war. This si why Americans are losing their Freedom.

And to answer a question, yes, if America were attacked again today, I would step up to fight for her defense. This is my homeland and I am proud of it. But not proud simply because we can destroy a third world country or oppress people across the globe and determine how other countries should work, but proud because we were founded on the ideals of individual Liberty and there's still a chance that we might honor that obligation.
.............................................The idea is to stay on OFFENSE!...... GET IT!!!.... If we can`t protect the homeland first, then the Constitution means nothing and which liberals trash anyway!..................And Saddam was an ally of terrorism. GET IT!!.....What would have happened had we not gone into Iraq? Simple! Sanctions or not, Saddam would have under secrecy re-constituted his WMD programs; nevermind that!........Continue to murder his own people; nevermind that!.........No doubt would have proliferated any WMD developement to terrorist groups causing a future attack on our nation much larger than 9/11; nevermind that!..............Protecting the "homeland" means alot more than remaining on the DEFENSIVE!......You say; "IF WE WERE ATTACKED" you`d defend and stand up and fight!!!...........Well sir! The IDEA IS TO PREVENT AN ATTACK FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DO SO!!!..........GET IT!!!!............If Europe had seen the threat of Hitler, showed some strength, mobilized and attacked Germany first in the mid 30`s before Germany had become much stronger, MILLIONS OF LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED!!......PREEMPTION WORKS!.. GET IT!!!!.....BUT NO!!! AN BRITISH APPEASER BY THE NAME OF CHAMBERLAIN CAME BACK FROM GERMANY WITH A TREATY IN HAND SIGNED BY ADOLPH HITLER! CHAMBERLAIN THEN DECLARED ''PEACE IN OUR TIME"..........OH REALLY!.......... Chamberlain TRUSTED evil and tried to negotiate with it AND because of that, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF LIVES WERE LOST!..............Don`t tell me that defending the homeland must remain only as defensive and not offensive too!................Another thing you don`t understand is that terrorists have no specific govt. country or origin. That is why it is necessary for each country to be fore-warned that if they harbor, finance or protect the terrorists, THEY TOO WILL BE SUBJECT TO MILITARY FORCE!!!........GET IT,,,,Mr. Chamberlain????!!!LocoLocoLocoLocoLoco

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: CowboyBill
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 16:47
Never you mind, you're clearly going to sit on that fence until you take a splinter to the sphincter or some other country comes in and knocks you and the rest of the fence riders down a few. We could have taken out Bin Laden, we knew what he was and we knew which side he took sides on after G.W. I. We did nothing because folks like you wouldn't stand for it. You don't have the stomach for freedom. You don't get it. You won't get it, because you can't get it. I am not going to waste my time. SLEEP WELL, and thank a soldier for providing that for you.   

-------------
A horse may be an outdated mode of transportation, but you don't buy hay by the gallon.


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:05
After Germany started annexing nations it was no longer a preemptive war. It was defensive. The Allies were fighting a defensive war against the Axis. There was no reason to attack and kill Hitler before he annexed Austria or Poland, but after he initiated these hostile and threatening actions, France and England should have honored their agreement and attacked Germany to insure Polish independence. That didn't happen and that's what was wrong.

"We could have taken out Bin Laden, we knew what he was and we knew which side he took sides on after G.W. I. We did nothing because folks like you wouldn't stand for it."

Huh? Do you mean Saddam and the first Gulf War? If not, I agree, we could have easily dealt with Bin laden if we hadn't run haphazardly into Iraq. We shouldn't have done sh*t with Saddam in the early 90's. We shouldn't have been in Kuwait. The U.N. can push them back if they want to, the other Arab tribes can do what's in their interest and keep Saddam from getting too powerful, but we had no real reason (other than U.N. resolutions) to be there. We don't have to fight everyone. Plenty of our enemies are enemies of our other enemies and happy to fight each other, thereby saving us some trouble.

Freedom is only provided by soldiers when they fight wars that actually defend our Constitution. Otherwise politicians turn these noble men into tools of fascism and tyranny.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:16
First and foremost, there is no comparison, regardless what pundits and politicians want to say, between this problem and Germany.  I will not go into further detail, but will say that radical Muslim extremists are different breed altogether.  They are not soldiers.  They have only one plan, that is too kill every non-Muslim in the way of their thinking.  If you think for a moment that leaving the region altogether will solve the problem, you are delusional.  We did have Bin Laden, but Bill Clinton was to busy watching golf.  Therein is the problem with liberals.  Thats funny though, considering how many people associated with the Clinton's have mysteriously died.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:19
Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

After Germany started annexing nations it was no longer a preemptive war. It was defensive. The Allies were fighting a defensive war against the Axis. There was no reason to attack and kill Hitler before he annexed Austria or Poland, but after he initiated these hostile and threatening actions, France and England should have honored their agreement and attacked Germany to insure Polish independence. That didn't happen and that's what was wrong.

"We could have taken out Bin Laden, we knew what he was and we knew which side he took sides on after G.W. I. We did nothing because folks like you wouldn't stand for it."

Huh? Do you mean Saddam and the first Gulf War? If not, I agree, we could have easily dealt with Bin laden if we hadn't run haphazardly into Iraq. We shouldn't have done sh*t with Saddam in the early 90's. We shouldn't have been in Kuwait. The U.N. can push them back if they want to, the other Arab tribes can do what's in their interest and keep Saddam from getting too powerful, but we had no real reason (other than U.N. resolutions) to be there. We don't have to fight everyone. Plenty of our enemies are enemies of our other enemies and happy to fight each other, thereby saving us some trouble.

Freedom is only provided by soldiers when they fight wars that actually defend our Constitution. Otherwise politicians turn these noble men into tools of fascism and tyranny.
.....................................You`re an idiot!!..................What President had several opportunities to get Bin Laden and didn`t do it!!!??? SLICK WILLY CLINTON!!............We shouldn`t have gone into Kuwait? Now you`re a real idiot!.......The UN has no army to speak of. They can`t even enforce their OWN resolutions!!...You can`t be that stupid!!!...................As far as the rest of your hypotheticals?......I guess you are that dumb, especially when it comes to the enemy!..................LocoLoco 

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:25
Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

After Germany started annexing nations it was no longer a preemptive war. It was defensive. The Allies were fighting a defensive war against the Axis. There was no reason to attack and kill Hitler before he annexed Austria or Poland, but after he initiated these hostile and threatening actions, France and England should have honored their agreement and attacked Germany to insure Polish independence. That didn't happen and that's what was wrong.

"We could have taken out Bin Laden, we knew what he was and we knew which side he took sides on after G.W. I. We did nothing because folks like you wouldn't stand for it."

Huh? Do you mean Saddam and the first Gulf War? If not, I agree, we could have easily dealt with Bin laden if we hadn't run haphazardly into Iraq. We shouldn't have done sh*t with Saddam in the early 90's. We shouldn't have been in Kuwait. The U.N. can push them back if they want to, the other Arab tribes can do what's in their interest and keep Saddam from getting too powerful, but we had no real reason (other than U.N. resolutions) to be there. We don't have to fight everyone. Plenty of our enemies are enemies of our other enemies and happy to fight each other, thereby saving us some trouble.

Freedom is only provided by soldiers when they fight wars that actually defend our Constitution. Otherwise politicians turn these noble men into tools of fascism and tyranny.
.....................................You`re an idiot!!..................What President had several opportunities to get Bin Laden and didn`t do it!!!??? SLICK WILLY CLINTON!!............We shouldn`t have gone into Kuwait? Now you`re a real idiot!.......The UN has no army to speak of. They can`t even enforce their OWN resolutions!!...You can`t be that stupid!!!...................As far as the rest of your hypotheticals?......I guess you are that dumb, especially when it comes to the enemy!..................LocoLoco 
....................................................To Zanmor from the Squeeze!.....................................Mean%20Computer

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Wrangler
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:35
Cowboy is right guys, remember the mayor in jaws, he ignored the problem right up until his butt was in a sling. This cat is that same kind of person, with the same kind of self righteous attitude, and loathing of his Country. He won't come right out and say what he really thinks because well, you get the hint there. Leave him be. Let him live in his little fantasy world, and when the time comes, let him take up arms like the rest of us, or let him DIE the death of a coward.  

-------------
I ain't wearing no danged Levis


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:39
Originally posted by Wrangler Wrangler wrote:

Cowboy is right guys, remember the mayor in jaws, he ignored the problem right up until his butt was in a sling. This cat is that same kind of person, with the same kind of self righteous attitude, and loathing of his Country. He won't come right out and say what he really thinks because well, you get the hint there. Leave him be. Let him live in his little fantasy world, and when the time comes, let him take up arms like the rest of us, or let him DIE the death of a coward.  
..............................Well stated "wrangler".................ExcellentExcellentExcellentExcellent

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:50
Now gentlemen, I most certainly disagree with zanmor, but I am not sure that is a good reason to get personal and call him names.

ILya


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 17:52
You're right, there is virtually no comparison to WWII and modern terrorism, the 'conversation' just went off on that tangent. Terrorism cannot be fought like a traditional enemy and if we choose to attempt that we will only end up occupy half of the middle east and southern Asia, stretching our army and creating an unsustainable empire. Then we fall to some threat like China. Real great way to defend our Freedom. Terrorists don't fight to win, but to create terror. They operate between governments, not within states, and if we attack them they simply relocate or if we destroy certain cells there are still others across the globe. Furthermore, our actions in the Middle East have increased terrorist recruitment and the constant wars between the Middle Eastern countries (we arm them all btw) means no side ever wins and the people of those states are kept in poverty and under constant threat of death, increasing the likelihood they will be willing to join a terrorist organization.

And let me state that I'm not concerned about any country or individual unless that country and individual is concerned with Man's Freedom. Nothing else matters.




Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 18:16
Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

You're right, there is virtually no comparison to WWII and modern terrorism, the 'conversation' just went off on that tangent. Terrorism cannot be fought like a traditional enemy and if we choose to attempt that we will only end up occupy half of the middle east and southern Asia, stretching our army and creating an unsustainable empire. Then we fall to some threat like China. Real great way to defend our Freedom. Terrorists don't fight to win, but to create terror. They operate between governments, not within states, and if we attack them they simply relocate or if we destroy certain cells there are still others across the globe. Furthermore, our actions in the Middle East have increased terrorist recruitment and the constant wars between the Middle Eastern countries (we arm them all btw) means no side ever wins and the people of those states are kept in poverty and under constant threat of death, increasing the likelihood they will be willing to join a terrorist organization.

And let me state that I'm not concerned about any country or individual unless that country and individual is concerned with Man's Freedom. Nothing else matters.


.................... Horse%20Poop................Beating%20a%20Dead%20Horse...............BS%20Flag...............BS%20Flag....................Down%20the%20Toilet............................If it is necessary to show strength and occupy every country that harbors terrorists!!................... THEN SO BE IT!!............PEACE ALWAYS IS ACHIEVED THROUGH STRENGTH!.......NOT by hap-hazard liberal appeasement!......Appeasement costs more, especially in more lives!!! TO HELL WITH HISTORY???....................You are truly a dead horse!..........I`m done here!!!

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Mojo
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 21:02
Hey Squeezer!!!!!!!  I voted for the Female COBRA herself, Mrs Bill Clinton, in the Wisconsin PRIMARY!!!  Nobody else to vote for BIG GUY!  Better chance of beating her!  Ended up not doing much good at all. 
 
Barry Hussein OBAMA must be stopped!  All of the people (are they people???) living in the 14 square miles of insanity, called Madison, WI are drinking the Kool-Aid.  This guy is selling CHANGE, BELIEF, and HOPE!  He wouldn't make the first round of cuts to be the mayor of Skokie, Illinois because, he has ZERO experience governing !
 
Two years ago, nobody even knew who Obama was, and now they want to make him President of the United States???? What kind of utter insanity is that????  What Obama is going to do, is TAX the living daylights out of everybody to pay for his social programs.   
 
I've got your back on this one Squeezer!!!  With the .700 Nitro Express Double Rifle.  I don't give a damn if it has two Barska scopes or even three!!  Lock&Load and Rock-N-Roll!!! You Da Man!!!!
 
Mojo 


-------------
MOJO


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 10:49
good LORD, i am about to defend bill clinton - which i never ever thought i would do.Stare
 
he actually had bin laden in his sights with a willing finger on the trigger and congress wouldn't allow him to pull the trigger. that would have been one of the only good things that bastard accomplished.
 
as for this presidential race - it scares the hell out of me - fred thompson was my man, and now i have to vote for mccain.
 
McCain is about to learn who his real friends are on THAT side of the aisle - his fence riding  is going to backfire on him, i'm afraid. but who else do we have to work with? no one.
 
this country probably needs 8 years of democratic disaster - by THAT time, all the kids that are rushing to vote for obama will learn the hard way and come over to the good side.
 
makes me sick. completely sick.
 
J


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 10:55
note: i am in NO way, shape, or form advocating any type of clintonisms.
 
J


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 12:36
Originally posted by jonbravado jonbravado wrote:

good LORD, i am about to defend bill clinton - which i never ever thought i would do.Stare
 
he actually had bin laden in his sights with a willing finger on the trigger and congress wouldn't allow him to pull the trigger. that would have been one of the only good things that bastard accomplished.
 
as for this presidential race - it scares the hell out of me - fred thompson was my man, and now i have to vote for mccain.
 
McCain is about to learn who his real friends are on THAT side of the aisle - his fence riding  is going to backfire on him, i'm afraid. but who else do we have to work with? no one.
 
this country probably needs 8 years of democratic disaster - by THAT time, all the kids that are rushing to vote for obama will learn the hard way and come over to the good side.
 
makes me sick. completely sick.
 
J
Actually, if you read the book written by the Colonel who carried the black box at all times, he states that, Bill was told three times during a golf tournament that they had Bin Laden in their sights, with a window of one and a half hours and Bill ignored his Secretary of State each time.


-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 12:38
JB, I'm afraid very afraid that you may well be right there brother. The one thing that really scares me is can we afford to let them learn that lesson? That I fear is taking for granted that they would learn that lesson, and that we can recover from the damage that will result, from what the DEMS have in mind. Freedom is a very delicate thing and can only truly remain when the balance is within parameters, we are on the brink of that balance being irretrievably tipped. If this does happen then the only way freedom will be regained will be through bloodshed.
If the DEMS actually respected the limitations that are placed on politicians by the Constitution then this wouldn't be a problem. Hell it wouldn't even be a discussion. We can be sure of one thing though, with the way politicians will amend the Constitution with no regard for the context in which it was drafted, we will soon find ourselves singing hail the King, or Queen. 


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 12:51
you are correct there Dolphin. I should note as well, we had that chance while we were still in Iraq the first time. That is when we knew he had turned on us. that also is when the plans for the trade center were found out. We did nothing. We did nothing because of the backlash that was feared by our then President. it should also be noted that we had SADDAM at that time as well and we chose to leave him in power, in retrospect that was a foolish decision. I can't for reasons that some military people will understand say much beyond what I have already stated. I can say that we knew also that Saddam and Bin-Laden were in cahoots with Al-quaida, and some other organizations that we thought might help keep the area stable. That is as much as I will say. It might be too much as it is.
I'll know if my door gets knocked in tonight


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 12:54
Interesting Cyborg.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 13:10
i stand corrected and educated - now i fully hate that bastard Yep,%20Thought%20So
but i hate his wife a lot more.
 
I hope that McCain can toughen up enough to stop the good side voters from voting independent or not voting at all.  We really need to win this one.
 
J


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 14:55
I will vote for McCain, Begrudgingly, but I'll do it. Mad The prospect of what else could happen is more than enough for me to be willing to cast my vote for the lesser of the evils.

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: Mojo
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 19:23
McCain was my fourth choice, at best.  Watch what a politition DOES, not what they SAY.  What they do is more of an indicator.  Try on McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, voting Against the tax cuts, and that group of 14 of which he was a member.  There is your true McCain.
 
Despite all of that, the BIG PICTURE is what is important.  Try on about 25 to 30 years of a couple three Liberal Supreme Court Justices.  Four years of McCain doesn't seem so bad compared to that.  Sitting home and not voting because McCain is not a true Conservative is a terrible mistake. 
 
Change, belief, hope?  Talk about idealistic platitudes!  Spoken just like the  true Liberal that Obama is.   


-------------
MOJO


Posted By: zanmor
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 21:57
Change isn't so bad, it's the type of change. I'd gladly welcome a change back to following our Constitution. Unfortunately we're looking at a change to Socialism...


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: February/27/2008 at 06:08
Originally posted by lucytuma lucytuma wrote:

McCain, plain and simple.
 
 
McCain, PAIN and simple. It's either HIM or the Democrats. Roll%20Eyes


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: February/27/2008 at 06:26
If that black-a$$ comes in, you whiteys won't know what hit you. Trust me on this one.


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: February/27/2008 at 06:28
Hildabeasts wet dream. Obama's nightmare.
 


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: Big Squeeze
Date Posted: February/27/2008 at 11:20
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

Hildabeasts wet dream. Obama's nightmare.
 
.................... That is hilarious!!........"Where to Ms. Daisy" Roll%20on%20Floor%20Laughing

-------------
300 WSM/375 Ruger....."All science, is truly the study of God`s wonderful work!"..."Bad news for liberals, is good news for America!".."What liberals hate, I love!".."What liberals like, I despise!"


Posted By: Goju
Date Posted: February/27/2008 at 18:27
Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

Change isn't so bad, it's the type of change. I'd gladly welcome a change back to following our Constitution. Unfortunately we're looking at a change to Socialism...


That's pretty much it in a nutshell.


Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: March/01/2008 at 00:04
Originally posted by Goju Goju wrote:


Originally posted by zanmor zanmor wrote:

Change isn't so bad, it's the type of change. I'd gladly welcome a change back to following our Constitution. Unfortunately we're looking at a change to Socialism...
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.




agreed


Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: March/01/2008 at 00:08
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

Originally posted by texashunter texashunter wrote:

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

I'm a Libertarian and I wouldn't give my vote to Mr Paul................ What does that tell you bro.......
...your not a constitutionalist Look at his voting record compared to the constitution, He has a 100% Constitutionally correct voting record

OH REALLY????????????

I suppose that believing in protecting this Country from possible and very REAL threats, that are over seas and on this very continent as well is uncostitutional????????

That makes absolutely no sense at all........... To hear you tell it anyone that is not in line with your view is UNCONSTITUTIONAL......... Ron Paul is in many ways a fantastic candidate............. I will not however lend my vote to anyone that lacks the stomach to do the job that is necessary to insure the long term safety of this Country........... I also believe in DOCUMENTING immigrants. Would you have open borders in this day and age, with so many that would destroy us? That is foolish, I am no ones fool, least of all someone that claims to be a COSTITUTIONALLY accurate candidate, and blindly allow the threats to this Country in and welcome them at that..............My idea of a welcoming party for these individuals is the fireworks that come from the muzzle blast of an AMERICAN held gun. STATES RIGHTS IS CONSTITUTIONAL, Where has that concept gone?

FREE and OPEN BORDERS and an antiwar stance is not a CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated concept.

Since when is it Constitutionally wrong to be at war with our enemies, or to fight for freedom for others for that matter?

YOU SIR are DEAD WRONG on these issues as is Mr Paul............

I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As such I have fought for the rights of people to be self loathing and to hate this Country as well............. WHERE SIR DO YOU STAND?

I suppose then also that to have a military is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

To use it for the protection of our sovereignty is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

HMMMMMMMMMMMM........... I guess being PATRIOTIC is also then UNCONSTITUTIONAL????

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK AGAIN SIR, especially before you start saying that I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONALIST!!!!!!!




I dont know where you got the idea that Ron Paul is for open borders? This is straight from his website.

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


Posted By: texashunter
Date Posted: March/01/2008 at 00:24
Well one of the men who wrote the constitution said "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Also I will say again that Ron Paul has more donations from troops than all other candidates combined, so saying that "If I am against the Iraq War, I am against the troops", is utterly ridiculous.


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: March/01/2008 at 16:35
Absolutely. I was against the war in Vietnam, but I wasn't against the TROOPS, for God's sake!!


Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: March/02/2008 at 20:46
All I'm gonna say about this bs view that is being propogated by CNN and the like is,,,,,,Cencored That and BITE ME!!!!!!

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net