Chuck Norris says, VIVA LA REVOLUCION

[BigWillie]

This stuff is getting out of hand. With the tragic deaths of Pittsburgh police officers because of a nutjob Republican who was preparing for the next 'revolution', we have wackos like Glenn Beck and Chuck freakin' Norris spouting some of the same crap.

It's sorta like if you say something enough and people hear this enough, they eventually convince themselves of what they hear, no matter how outrageous it is.

Sooner or later there will be another Timothy McVeigh who convinces himself he is a 'crusader for the Constitution' and does the unthinkable again. It's just sick to hear people speak like this, especially people who can speak to the masses.

It's also unfortunate for Barack, when Chuck begins the next revolution, he is effed in the a.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103

On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas."

That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.

From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.

George Washington advised, "The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible." Yet the Obama administration just pledged $900 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority.

Thomas Jefferson counseled us, "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." Yet the Feds have just skyrocketed our national deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, and it plans much more fiscal expansion with few expectations of resistance. Despite that George Washington admonished, "To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones," we keep borrowing and bailing, while we watch the stock market plunge further every time we do.

Patrick Henry taught that, "Our Constitution is … an instrument for its people to restrain the government." Yet our Congress and president stampede that founding document, overlook its explicitness and manipulate its words to abandon a balance of power and accommodate their own desires, partisan politics and runaway spending.

John Adams declared that, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Yet we've *******ized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America's religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When I appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show, he told me that someone had asked him, "Do you really believe that there is going to be trouble in the future?" And he answered, "If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up." Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, "And where's that going to come from?" He answered his own question, "Texas, it's going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?" I replied, "Oh yeah!" Definitely.

It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck's radio show, "I may run for president of Texas!"

I'm not saying that other states won't muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic. Washington-on-the-Brazos (river) served as our Philadelphia, Pa. It was there, on March 2, 1836, where a band of patriots forged the Texas Declaration of Independence. (We just celebrated these dates last week.)

On March 1, 1845, then-President John Tyler signed a congressional bill annexing the Republic of Texas. Though the annexation resolution never explicitly granted Texas the right to secede from the Union (as is often reported), many (including me) hold that it is implied by its unique autonomy and history, as well as the unusual provision in the resolution that gave Texas the right to divide into as many as five states. Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also declare that "All political power is inherent in the people. … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America. Let there be no doubt about that. As Sam Houston once said, "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."

Just last Friday, the Alamo celebrated its 173rd commemoration, when on March 6, 1836, Texans under Col. William B. Travis were overcome by the Mexican army after a two-week siege at the Alamo in San Antonio. But they didn't go down without a hell-of-a-fight, as those roughly 145 Texans fought to their dying breaths against more than 2,000 Mexican forces under Gen. Santa Anna. (Casualties in the battle were 189 Texans vs. about 1,600 Mexicans.) They lost that battle, but would provide the inspiration to win the war. Their fighting spirit rallied the new-found republic, and still does to this day. So when you think all is lost in America, remember the Alamo!

For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News' Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn's website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we've invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It's our way of saying "We're united, we're tired of the corruption, and we're not going to take it anymore!"

Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, "We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father's name."

[CowboyFan74]

With the tragic deaths of Pittsburgh police officers because of a nutjob Republican who was preparing for the next 'revolution',

Wait what happened in Pitts?:confused:

[BigWillie]

Wait what happened in Pitts?:confused:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

Three Pittsburgh police officers were killed and two others were injured after a heavily armed man began firing at them as they responded to a domestic call this morning at a home in Stanton Heights.

The 22-year-old suspected shooter, Richard "Pop" Poplawski, who told friends he was wearing a bulletproof vest, surrendered to police about 11 a.m., four hours after the standoff began at 1016 Fairfield St. He was shot several times in the legs and was being treated at UPMC Presbyterian.

City officials this afternoon identified the officers as Stephen Mayhle, a two-year veteran of the force, Eric Kelly, on the job for 14 years, and Paul Sciullo III, also a two-year veteran.

Police said Officer Mayhle was married and had two daughters, ages 3 and 6; Officer Kelly was married and had three daughters, ages 11, 16 and 22; and Officer Sciullo was single and engaged to be married.

One injured officer, 15-year-veteran Timothy McManaway, was treated at a hospital for a bullet wound, and the fifth officer, Brian Jones, suffered a broken leg.

Police Chief Nathan Harper said Mr. Poplawski will be charged with three counts of homicide.

Shortly after 1 p.m., city 911 dispatchers announced that flags in the city would be lowered to half staff and officers were to place black mourning bands over their badges "in honor of our deceased brothers . . . lest we forget."

The incident began at 7:05 a.m., after officers went to the address and the suspect opened fire, police said.

Chief Harper said three officers initially were wounded when Mr. Poplawski fired an assault rifle. The fourth and fifth officers were injured as they responded to the first shootings, the chief said.

For much of the morning, the standoff forced police to lock down the neighborhood as scores of officers converged on the house, where Mr. Poplawski had barricaded himself. At least one other family member was in the house.

Some of the wounded officers remained for a time where they fell because other officers could not reach them with bullets continuing to fly over their heads, according to Diane Richard, Pittsburgh Police spokeswoman.

A state police helicopter hovered overhead as more than 100 officers from Pittsburgh, the state, the district attorney's office and the Port Authority and the FBI converged along with neighbors and other onlookers.

Authorities as well as members of the suspect's family were in contact with Mr. Poplawski by phone. Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl was among the officials at the scene.

A neighbor and longtime friend Joe DiMarco and his mother, Darlene, said they spoke to Mr. Poplawski on the telephone this morning.

"He told me he loved me and that he'd been shot in the chest and leg," Ms. DiMarco said.

Another neighbor, Brian Merlina, said he was getting out of the shower at 7:30 a.m. when he heard rapid-fire gunshots. About 30 minutes later, he heard at least two dozen more shots fired.

Shortly thereafter, the state police helicopter landed in a field near his house. He said he drove a trooper who got out of the helicopter to the scene.

Utility crews cut off power to the house at 10:45 a.m. because they believed Mr. Poplawski was monitoring media reports. He surrendered a short time later.

Drew Stadler, 34, who lives nearby on Oglethorpe Street, said he heard loud bangs around 8 a.m. From his window, he saw Mr. Poplawski pointing what appeared to be a semiautomatic rifle and shooting at officers from a window above the garage of the Fairfield Street house.

SWAT officers were pinned down, with their protective shields up, at an adjacent house.

At one point, the SWAT officers pulled away a wounded officer and dragged him down the street, Mr. Stadler said. He also said he heard potentially hundreds of shots fired throughout the incident.

Other friends said Mr. Poplawski had several guns, including an AK-47 assault-type rifle, a .357 Magnum revolver, a .380-caliber handgun and a .45-caliber handgun. They also said they believed he had not been getting along with his mother.

Mr.Poplawski called Edward Perkovic, a longtime friend and former classmate at North Catholic High School, on a cell phone around 8:30 a.m. Mr. Perkovic said Mr. Poplawski told him he'd been shot in the chest and leg, but that the bulletproof vest he'd been wearing had shielded him.

Mr. Perkovic also said Mr. Poplawski told him: "Eddie, I'm going to die today. Tell your family and friends I love them. This is probably the end."

A burst of gunfire followed, and the call ended, Mr. Perkovic said. A short time later, he said, a city 911 official telephoned him and asked him to come to Fairfield Street and help to negotiate a surrender with Mr. Poplawski.

By the time he arrived there, however, the standoff had ended.

Mr. Perkovic and other former classmates said they were surprised by this morning's events. Mr. Perkovic said Mr. Poplawski was opposed to "Zionist propaganda" and was fearful that his right to own weapons would be taken away but he wasn't a member of an organized group or militia.

"He always said that if someone tried to take his weapons away he would do what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself."

Another friend, Aaron Vire, 23, said he'd helped Mr. Poplawski and Mr. Perkovic with a radio show they'd broadcast on the Internet, discussing "politics, girls and life."

Mr. Poplawski had supported Republican candidate John McCain in the presidential election and had "very spirited debates" about Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Vire said. Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama's election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.

"He wasn't a racist but thought some of his amendments were overlooked," Mr. Vire said. Even though Mr. Vire is black and Mr. Poplawski is white, the debates over President Obama did not hurt their friendship, he said.

Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.

"He said he'll be ready if there's ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."

[hairic]

Wait what happened in Pitts?:confused:

Guy opened fire on cops, killing 3 and injuring 2, because he believed Obama was going to take away his guns.

[silverbear]

Wait what happened in Pitts?:confused:

3 cops murdered by a loser/whack job who reportedly acted at least in part because "Obama's going to take our guns"...

Never mind that Obama has said no such thing, and certainly has made no effort to do such a thing... never mind that he almost certainly never will, because a) that would be political suicide in this country, and b) he has a rather full agenda of issues far more important...

Of course, murdering cops is the first thing most gun nuts think of, isn't it??

I think the OP is a little harsh in his criticism of the right here, but I have to admit that when I read about his whack job, a few in here sprang to my mind... this is exactly the sort of whack job who responds to the kind of hate speech currently in vogue in here...

And as long as I'm making a brief drive by here this AM, permit me to observe that Obama the "Socialist" (as many in here insist he is) had a PERFECT chance to practice a little socialism, and even had Republicans who would have supported him when he did, and chose not to avail himself of the opportunity...

I refer to the Administration's "toxic assets" plan for the banking industry... they chose this option rather than the socialistic one of nationalizing the troubled banks...

Strange behavior for a "socialist", no?? The truth is, our new President is acting pretty much like a centrist, kinda like Bill Clinton was...

Of course, I don't expect the Obama haters in here to stop demonizing the guy, and I certainly don't expect them to start making sense with their criticisms... that would be beyond unrealistic of me...

[silverbear]

Guy opened fire on cops, killing 3 and injuring 2, because he believed Obama was going to take away his guns.

To be completely fair, that was only part of the reason offered by the media thus far... the other part was that he was upset about losing his job... I expect we'll learn a good deal more about his motives in the coming days...

Oh, and Chuck Norris is the quintessential wingnut, not to be taken seriously by anybody with half a brain...

[zrinkill]

http://www.blogcdn.com/news.aol.com/political-machine/media/2009/03/chuck_norris_walker.jpg

[burmafrd]

Since I knew, ;and so does everyone else; that silver would drool his usual drivel about conservatives, and blindly defend his messiah, one could ask why does he bother?
Sadly we seem to have another VC in little william.

[MetalHead]

http://www.blogcdn.com/news.aol.com/political-machine/media/2009/03/chuck_norris_walker.jpg

Can't be worse than Barry...

[silverbear]

Since I knew, ;and so does everyone else; that silver would drool his usual drivel about conservatives, and blindly defend his messiah, one could ask why does he bother?

More astute, in-depth political analysis from the board's resident right wing fanatic...

I notice you went for the ad hominem, and didn't evey TRY to address my observations re: Obama's supposed "socialist" tendencies... of course you don't want to try to explain why this so-called "socialist" willfully chose to AVOID taking the socialistic route (i.e., nationalization of troubled banks) when even a lot of Republicans would not have blamed him for taking that route...

He had a tailor-made opportunity to nudge this country down the path to socialism, like the whack jobs in here are constantly claiming he wants to do, and chose not to do so...

Do you care to address that FACT, burm??

If not, how 'bout you address another FACT-- that the beloved hero of the right, Chuck Norris, is now advocating the dissolution of our nation?? He explicitly advocated Texas withdrawing from the Union... last time somebody did that, we wound up in a freakin' Civil War...

Yeah, that Chuck, he's a REAL patriot...

Oh, as for why I bother, I do so for one reason, and one reason only-- to point out to you and those like you that your claims are quite bogus, as are your political philosophies... IOW, I do it to rub your nose in your political naivete... and to annoy you personally, of course...

[Rogah]

This stuff is getting out of hand. With the tragic deaths of Pittsburgh police officers because of a nutjob Republican who was preparing for the next 'revolution', we have wackos like Glenn Beck and Chuck freakin' Norris spouting some of the same crap.With all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. That nutjob yesterday doesn't represent Republicans any more than that Vietnamese guy who shot up the Civic Center in Binghamton represents immigrants, or that guy in Oakland who killed 4 cops represents African Americans. Don't you agree?
I think the OP is a little harsh in his criticism of the right here, but I have to admit that when I read about his whack job, a few in here sprang to my mind... this is exactly the sort of whack job who responds to the kind of hate speech currently in vogue in here...See my above response.

[Bob Sacamano]

I side with Chuck Norris

[TheCount]

Guy opened fire on cops, killing 3 and injuring 2, because he believed Obama was going to take away his guns.

He had a lot more than that going on, dude was certifiable. Walked the streets barefoot, broke windows, etc. A real nutjob, who also happened to like guns.

[ScipioCowboy]

This stuff is getting out of hand. With the tragic deaths of Pittsburgh police officers because of a nutjob Republican who was preparing for the next 'revolution', we have wackos like Glenn Beck and Chuck freakin' Norris spouting some of the same crap.

It's sorta like if you say something enough and people hear this enough, they eventually convince themselves of what they hear, no matter how outrageous it is.

Ironic.

By equating the Norris article to the actions of the Pittsburgh shooter, you're guilty of perpetuating the same type of baseless, political fear-mongering that drove the Pittsburgh shooter to murders those officers.

[iceberg]

as far as "this is getting out of hand" - no. it's BEEN out of hand.

bush hates the black man. bush caused katrina. someone took a whizz on a koran and riots broke out where people were killed.

this is just carryover and the other sides turn to be "extreme".

the dude who killed the pitt cops was whacked. but it amazes me "the left" only see NOW that it's getting out of hand even though they lied and made crap up for 8 years.

dangerous times we're in.

[Angus]

By the way, I bought a gun the other day.

:)

[MetalHead]

By the way, I bought a gun the other day.

:)


Only one?

[Vintage]

Can't be worse than Barry...

Sure he can.

If anything has been learned from the past 16+ years, its that the Republicans and Democrats are battling out to see who can become the more inept party.

I thought the Democrats had it on lock down when they couldn't manage to beat Bush.

Then the Republicans offered Palin.

Should be interesting. To see which party sucks more in the coming years. An Obama led Democrats or a Palin led Republican party.

I can imagine the battles will be intense.

[MetalHead]

Sure he can.

If anything has been learned from the past 16+ years, its that the Republicans and Democrats are battling out to see who can become the more inept party.

I thought the Democrats had it on lock down when they couldn't manage to beat Bush.

Then the Republicans offered Palin.

Should be interesting. To see which party sucks more in the coming years. An Obama led Democrats or a Palin led Republican party.

I can imagine the battles will be intense.

Can't argue with that...however,Barry is in way over his head.
The teleprompter is the president...now who feeds the teleprompter?

[BigWillie]

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. That nutjob yesterday doesn't represent Republicans any more than that Vietnamese guy who shot up the Civic Center in Binghamton represents immigrants, or that guy in Oakland who killed 4 cops represents African Americans. Don't you agree?

Example: See the majority of this board.

What is really different in what the majority of this board says and what Chuck Norris said/thinks?

Do we go a day here without hearing about Obama's socialist policies, how he will cripple the economy, potentially harm our country by being 'weak', deny our Constitutional rights (i.e., gun ownership), etc.,? It's a daily thing around here. Or is it that it is just limited to this forum and other Republican majority forums do not think this way?

Ironic.

By equating the Norris article to the actions of the Pittsburgh shooter, you're guilty of perpetuating the same type of baseless, political fear-mongering that drove the Pittsburgh shooter to murders those officers.

The only irony would be is if what I were saying was false.

The same scare tactics by Republicans, the "Democrats are gay loving, baby killing, take your money away from you, kill the economy, gun thieving, Socialists" have been going on for over 20 years. But yet, somehow, as crazy as it is, we are all still here with all our basic rights.

But yet these fear tactics are still played in the open public. Why?

[WoodysGirl]

Fight over urinating dog got police to Pa. ambush

Associated Press
April 5, 2009, 2:08PM

PITTSBURGH — A 911 call that brought two police officers to a home where they were ambushed, and where a third was also later killed during a four-hour siege, was precipitated by a fight between the gunman and his mother over a dog urinating in the house.


The Saturday argument between Margaret and Richard Poplawski escalated to the point that she threatened to kick him out and she called police to do it, according to a 12-page criminal complaint and affidavit filed late Saturday.


When officers Paul Sciullo III and Stephen Mayhle arrived, Margaret Poplawski opened the door and told them to come in and take her 23-year-old son, apparently unaware he was standing behind her with a rifle, the affidavit said. Hearing gunshots, she spun around to see her son with the gun and ran to the basement.


“What the hell have you done?” she shouted.


The mother told police her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition “because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society,” the affidavit said.


Friends have said Poplawski was concerned about his weapons being seized during Barack Obama’s presidency, and friends said he owned several handguns and an AK-47 assault rifle. Police have not said, specifically, what weapons were used to kill the officers.


Autopsies show Sciullo, 37, died of wounds to the head and torso. Mayhle, 29, was shot in the head.


A witness awakened by two gunshots told investigators of seeing the gunman standing in the home’s front doorway and firing two to three shots into one officer who was already down. Sciullo was later found dead in the home’s living room, and Mayhle near the front stoop, police said.


A third officer, Eric Kelly, 41, was killed as he arrived to assist the first two officers. Kelly was in uniform but on his way home when he responded and was gunned down in the street.


Kelly’s radio call for help summoned other officers, including a SWAT team. The ensuing standoff included a gun battle in which police say Richard Poplawski tried to kill other officers.


Poplawski is charged with three counts of criminal homicide and nine counts of attempted homicide — one each for the eight officers who were shot at in an armored SWAT vehicle, plus a ninth who was shot in the hand as he tried to help Kelly.


Poplawski also was charged with possessing an instrument of crime: the bulletproof vest he wore during the gun battle. The criminal complaint doesn’t say how Poplawski obtained the vest.


Police Chief Nate Harper Jr. has said the vest kept Poplawski from being more seriously wounded, but police have not specifically said how many shots were stopped by the vest.


A district judge arraigned Poplawski at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, an arraignment court worker told The Associated Press on Sunday. Poplawski was being treated there for gunshot wounds to his extremities and remains under guard. Police and hospital officials have not released his condition, though he is expected to survive.


It was not immediately clear if Poplawski has an attorney. A preliminary hearing, at which Poplawski could challenge the charges, wasn’t immediately scheduled.


Poplawski is also charged with firing weapons into two occupied neighboring homes and with recklessly endangering four people, two in each home, with gunfire. No civilians were wounded.


Police did not immediately say why Poplawski fired toward the homes, but some officers were seen going into nearby homes and perching on rooftops.


Police did not immediately release any information on funeral arrangements for the officers, though a memorial was held Saturday night outside the police station where all three slain officers worked.


Bagpipers played near a black wreath hung outside the station and an Allegheny County 911 dispatcher did a roll call for the 11 p.m. shift change. Various officers responded when their car numbers were called, but there was silence when the names, unit numbers and badge numbers of the slain officers were called out.


Chief Harper radioed back in each instance that the officer had been killed in the line of duty as hundreds of officers and other mourners stood listening nearby.

[burmafrd]

Well I gotta give credit to Little William: he is getting to silver, VC and Suspect level real fast. Still has a way to go though.

[vta]

Example: See the majority of this board.

What is really different in what the majority of this board says and what Chuck Norris said/thinks?

Do we go a day here without hearing about Obama's socialist policies, how he will cripple the economy, potentially harm our country by being 'weak', deny our Constitutional rights (i.e., gun ownership), etc.,? It's a daily thing around here. Or is it that it is just limited to this forum and other Republican majority forums do not think this way?



The only irony would be is if what I were saying was false.

The same scare tactics by Republicans, the "Democrats are gay loving, baby killing, take your money away from you, kill the economy, gun thieving, Socialists" have been going on for over 20 years. But yet, somehow, as crazy as it is, we are all still here with all our basic rights.

But yet these fear tactics are still played in the open public. Why?

Actually this is common for a balanced board. When power shifts the focus shifts.

During the previous administration you couldn't go a day without hearing about a police state, U.S. hegemony, wire tapping, lying, 9/11 causing conspirators who were going to bankrupt our country and squander our popular role in the world. The same Democratic fear mongering of how the Republicans are fascist, religious zealot, warmongering piles of hubris.

What was the difference between what was said on this board and people like al Zawahiri? Ahmadinejhad? Who, ironically enough were saying the same things?

Are starting to see how it works?
Divide and conquer is a very efficient tool of controlling a population.

[Rogah]

Example: See the majority of this board.

What is really different in what the majority of this board says and what Chuck Norris said/thinks?There is a huge difference between anything people on this board (or Chuck Norris) says, and actually taking a gun in hand and killing policemen. So for you to try to create a direct line from A to B is out of line.
Do we go a day here without hearing about Obama's socialist policies, how he will cripple the economy, potentially harm our country by being 'weak', deny our Constitutional rights (i.e., gun ownership), etc.,? It's a daily thing around here. Or is it that it is just limited to this forum and other Republican majority forums do not think this way?Ah yes... pesky thing, that whole freedom of speech concept, ain't it..? It's especially irritating how all those people you disagree with keep exercising it..!! :rolleyes:

[ethiostar]

There is a huge difference between anything people on this board (or Chuck Norris) says, and actually taking a gun in hand and killing policemen. So for you to try to create a direct line from A to B is out of line.
Ah yes... pesky thing, that whole freedom of speech concept, ain't it..? It's especially irritating how all those people you disagree with keep exercising it..!! :rolleyes:

What's this freedom of speech thing you speak of? ;)

[Cajuncowboy]

:lmao2:

Idiots trying to paint this as a conservative thing.


What a bunch of left wing jokes.

So everybody now who loses their job and goes nuts, is because of conservationism.

I think the truth is people are getting concerned about this fool that got elected and what he is going to do.

This guy was a nut. But to call it a Republican thing or to condemn Beck or Norris for speaking the truth is absurd.

You people on the left are off your hinges. And we are now reaping what we have sown by letting the left get all this power.

[Cajuncowboy]

Example: See the majority of this board.

What is really different in what the majority of this board says and what Chuck Norris said/thinks?

Do we go a day here without hearing about Obama's socialist policies, how he will cripple the economy, potentially harm our country by being 'weak', deny our Constitutional rights (i.e., gun ownership), etc.,? It's a daily thing around here. Or is it that it is just limited to this forum and other Republican majority forums do not think this way?



The only irony would be is if what I were saying was false.

The same scare tactics by Republicans, the "Democrats are gay loving, baby killing, take your money away from you, kill the economy, gun thieving, Socialists" have been going on for over 20 years. But yet, somehow, as crazy as it is, we are all still here with all our basic rights.

But yet these fear tactics are still played in the open public. Why?

It's not a fear tactic if it's true. And it is!

[ChldsPlay]

:lmao2:

Idiots trying to paint this as a conservative thing.


What a bunch of left wing jokes.

So everybody now who loses their job and goes nuts, is because of conservationism.

I think the truth is people are getting concerned about this fool that got elected and what he is going to do.

This guy was a nut. But to call it a Republican thing or to condemn Beck or Norris for speaking the truth is absurd.

You people on the left are off your hinges. And we are now reaping what we have sown by letting the left get all this power.

Freudian slip?

[Vintage]

Freudian slip?


Most def.

Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives. They are nearly as bad as the Democrats when it comes to spending.

[Cajuncowboy]

Most def.

Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives. They are nearly as bad as the Democrats when it comes to spending.

Ummm, I'm not a Republican per se.

So you got it wrong.

[Cajuncowboy]

Freudian slip?

Spelling slip.

[Beast_from_East]

:lmao2:

Idiots trying to paint this as a conservative thing.


What a bunch of left wing jokes.

So everybody now who loses their job and goes nuts, is because of conservationism.

I think the truth is people are getting concerned about this fool that got elected and what he is going to do.

This guy was a nut. But to call it a Republican thing or to condemn Beck or Norris for speaking the truth is absurd.

You people on the left are off your hinges. And we are now reaping what we have sown by letting the left get all this power.

Obama's job approval is currently 62% accroding to Gallup. An approval rating over 60% is universally considered excellent.

So I really dont see where people are getting concerned about what he is doing, in fact, most people seem to support what policies have been implemented and the direction the country is heading.

As long as Obama's favorable # stays above 60%, he can pretty much force through Congress anything he wants (like his $3.6 trillion budget). Like Rush Limbaugh says on his show everyday, "the Republicans dont have the votes to stop any of this".

Now if you want to know what the first sign of trouble is going to be, see if Obama's approval # on Gallup drops below 50%, that would signal that a majority of Americans are starting to have some reservations about what is going on.


I think Obama's approval # will also affect who declares in 2010/2011 for the next Presidential campaign (the last campaign lasted almost 2 years, so the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011 will be the time of most announcements). If Obama is still over 50% approval at this point, I think you may see some contenders decide to sit out 2012 and run against somebody else less popular in 2016.

[burmafrd]

With the media still in love with the messiah, its not surprising his approval rating is still high.

[JBond]

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. That nutjob yesterday doesn't represent Republicans any more than that Vietnamese guy who shot up the Civic Center in Binghamton represents immigrants, or that guy in Oakland who killed 4 cops represents African Americans. Don't you agree?
See my above response.

I wonder why the murder of 4 officers and the hero like status attributed to the killer has not made more national news.

BigWillie, does that piece of garbage represent all blacks? Using your pathetic perverted logic what should we do about the blacks, because based on your logic they all support murdering cops.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fail-pregnancy.jpg

This thread is full of fail.

[DFWJC]

Oh, you mean like Rosie O or Charlie Sheen and others saying the government brought down the twin towers. THAT kind of anti-government lunacy.

Okay, I see.

[Doomsday101]

Republic of Texas has a sweet ring to it

Presidents of the republic of Texas
David G. Burnet
Sam Houston
Mirabeau B. Lamar
Anson Jones
Chuck Norris

[BrAinPaiNt]

Republic of Texas has a sweet ring to it

Presidents of the republic of Texas
David G. Burnet
Sam Houston
Mirabeau B. Lamar
Anson Jones
Chuck Norris

I have no problem if people want to leave this country, I just wish they would do it instead of whining about doing it.

That goes for both the whiny liberal stars that did it when W won the second time around and those wingnuts from either texas or alaska who advocate succeeding from the union.

Shut up and do it is all I ask.

[Doomsday101]

I have no problem if people want to leave this country, I just wish they would do it instead of whining about doing it.

That goes for both the whiny liberal stars that did it when W won the second time around and those wingnuts from either texas or alaska who advocate succeeding from the union.

Shut up and do it is all I ask.

I agree. However for whatever reason you seem more vocal about old Chuck than any of the liberal whiners you seem to give a lot of free passes to the liberal and pound on Conservative. I have seen more sticking up for Obama from you than any you did when Bush was in office but hey your independent right? :confused:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I agree. However for whatever reason you seem more vocal about old Chuck than any of the liberal whiners you seem to give a lot of free passes to the liberal and pound on Conservative. I have seen more sticking up for Obama from you than any you did when Bush was in office but hey your independent right? :confused:

What are you talking about?

I said it when liberals like Baldwin and others said it as well...yes when W was in office. I said I wish they would put up or shut up.

But if you want to defend those that talk about leaving our nation through secession while pretending to be great patriots of this country and questioning people who do not see eye to eye with them...so be it.

:rolleyes:

[JBond]

I notice you went for the ad hominem, and didn't evey TRY to address my observations re: Obama's supposed "socialist" tendencies... of course you don't want to try to explain why this so-called "socialist" willfully chose to AVOID taking the socialistic route (i.e., nationalization of troubled banks) when even a lot of Republicans would not have blamed him for taking that route...

Obama has fired the heads of Fannie, Freddie, AIG and GM. I'm sure I missing a couple. He replaced them with his own hand picked idiots. Many of whom appear completely incompetent at this point.

Then to follow act one, Obama has decided to refuse repayment of the TARP funds so he can continue to control those institutions as well. Nationalism, socialism, fascistism or just being a foolish democrat, I don't care about the label. Obama is a POS liar who is leading this country away from everything that had made it great.

Silver, it is a close contest of the least informed. You, VC or BigWillie. None of you seem to have a clue what is going on right in front of your face.

Of course you would approve of Obama because you are still looking for someone to pay your way for you. Plus your huge ego will never allow you to admit when you are wrong. Rest easy old guy. National health care is going to be voted in this week. But you may be in for a surprise when it is implemented. Obama has already said the old and infirm, such as yourself, will be cut out, and they must learn to do without. You do not have enough to offer or produce enough to be worth covering in an Obama world.

[DaBoys4Life]

If Chuck Norris says Viva la Revolucion then welcome to civil war 2. Next president Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris is how the west was won.

[JBond]

I have no problem if people want to leave this country, I just wish they would do it instead of whining about doing it.

That goes for both the whiny liberal stars that did it when W won the second time around and those wingnuts from either texas or alaska who advocate succeeding from the union.

Shut up and do it is all I ask.

It was either Newt or the RNC that sent Baldwin a one way ticket to Canada after hanging chad gate. I thought that was pretty funny.

[Doomsday101]

What are you talking about?

I said it when liberals like Baldwin and others said it as well...yes when W was in office. I said I wish they would put up or shut up.

But if you want to defend those that talk about leaving our nation through secession while pretending to be great patriots of this country and questioning people who do not see eye to eye with them...so be it.

:rolleyes:

As I said I agree with you so I'm not defending anything but sorry you come off slamming most conservative and say little to nothing about the liberals I call it giving them a free pass as you continue to attack conservatives. It may not be your true feelings I can only go by what you say around here. So please roll your eyes or whatever you want I'm only stating the obvious

[BrAinPaiNt]

As I said I agree with you so I'm not defending anything but sorry you come off slamming most conservative and say little to nothing about the liberals I call it giving them a free pass as you continue to attack conservatives. It may not be your true feelings I can only go by what you say around here. So please roll your eyes or whatever you want I'm only stating the obvious

Well I did vote for W the first time, I did support him going into Iraq and I did give it time with the Hurricane Katrina thing.

So Maybe I am willing to give Obama some time even if I did not vote for him.

Just something to consider.

It took me some time to get my W disgust and W derangement syndrome going, looks like some of you guys have got it going on from the get go.

I love how Cajun and some others run in here posting and article blasting Obama only to have it blow up in their face.

:laugh1:

[Doomsday101]

Well I did vote for W the first time, I did support him going into Iraq and I did give it time with the Hurricane Katrina thing.

So Maybe I am willing to give Obama some time even if I did not vote for him.

Just something to consider.

It took me some time to get my W disgust and W derangement syndrome going, looks like some of you guys have got it going on from the get go.

I love how Cajun and some others run in here posting and article blasting Obama only to have it blow up in their face.

:laugh1:


Well you voted for Ron Paul so you can't be agreeing with Obama on all this spending with these bailouts of private business? Hell I voted for Bush and was quick to point out when I disagreed. Time should not be an issue it is what they do that should be.

[WoodysGirl]

As I said I agree with you so I'm not defending anything but sorry you come off slamming most conservative and say little to nothing about the liberals I call it giving them a free pass as you continue to attack conservatives. It may not be your true feelings I can only go by what you say around here. So please roll your eyes or whatever you want I'm only stating the obviousTo be fair, it's not like Brain runs around pushing what is considered a liberal agenda either.

Well I did vote for W the first time, I did support him going into Iraq and I did give it time with the Hurricane Katrina thing.

So Maybe I am willing to give Obama some time even if I did not vote for him.

Just something to consider.

It took me some time to get my W disgust and W derangement syndrome going, looks like some of you guys have got it going on from the get go.

I love how Cajun and some others run in here posting and article blasting Obama only to have it blow up in their face.

:laugh1:
Ok so yeah I do get a chuckle out of that...not just Cajun either. To anyone who runs in posting "See! See! You're guy sucks!" Only to find out "D'oh, so does yours..."

[Doomsday101]

To be fair, it's not like Brain runs around pushing what is considered a liberal agenda either.


Ok so yeah I do get a chuckle out of that...not just Cajun either. To anyone who runs in posting "See! See! You're guy sucks!" Only to find out "D'oh, so does yours..."

I did not say he was pushing an agenda only stating that he has been quick to attack the right and seem to either play off or is unresponsive to the left.

[Vintage]

What are you talking about?

I said it when liberals like Baldwin and others said it as well...yes when W was in office. I said I wish they would put up or shut up.

But if you want to defend those that talk about leaving our nation through secession while pretending to be great patriots of this country and questioning people who do not see eye to eye with them...so be it.

:rolleyes:


They weren't great patriots when they wanted to succeed when Bush was President.

Now... they are great patriots because they want to succeed when Barack is President.

[WoodysGirl]

I did not say he was pushing an agenda only stating that he has been quick to attack the right and seem to either play off or is unresponsive to the left.
I'm not trying to be Dr. Phyllis. But from my perspective, maybe it's because he doesn't really care about the "left" in this case.

JMO, but sometimes you attack the things you care most about. If those in charge on the "right" were doing what he thought was right, then maybe he wouldn't be blasting them every chance he got.

I'm just speculating, of course, and he can obviously express his viewpoints better than I can.

[Doomsday101]

They weren't great patriots when they wanted to succeed when Bush was President.

Now... they are great patriots because they want to succeed when Barack is President.

I know many fellow Texans who have talked about this issue long before Bush took office. In large part it is because many see the power in Washington with little control here in the state of Texas. We can't do nothing about our boarder issue because the law says that is a federal issue yet the feds do little about it and in the meantime we pay the price for this do nothing response by Washington.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well you voted for Ron Paul so you can't be agreeing with Obama on all this spending with these bailouts of private business? Hell I voted for Bush and was quick to point out when I disagreed. Time should not be an issue it is what they do that should be.

I don't have to agree with all things when it comes to political ideology. But I will give the man a chance to see if things turn around. I gave more than that to W when he took office and you seen where that got me.

Sorry...I know the wing nuts in here expect everyone to bash Obummer, the antichrist, the stalin and whatever else they want to call him just because he is a dem and so on.

I will give him time and a chance. Something I seen many claim they would do, but very few seem to be living up to that.

I just don't have that Obama derangement or hate syndrome like some of you do...yet.

I will even go one step further and say that during the election and to some extent since he has won, I have found myself not so much defending him at times...but arguing and being disgusted by some of the idiocy and pure hate filled posts by some in here that are against him. Some in here have been pretty pathetic in many ways concerning this guy IMO. That added to what I consider the loony conspiracy nuts.

It's kind of like when some come in here with the truther crap against W. And I don't like W and don't want to defend W, but at times I find myself defending him because of the style and or nature of the poster ripping on W.

Hope that makes sense. Probably won't because some in here are so ingrained with you are with us or against us to take their heads out of the backsides long enough to look at other reasons.:p:

[Doomsday101]

I'm not trying to be Dr. Phyllis. But from my perspective, maybe it's because he doesn't really care about the "left" in this case.

JMO, but sometimes you attack the things you care most about. If those in charge on the "right" were doing what he thought was right, then maybe he wouldn't be blasting them every chance he got.

I'm just speculating, of course, and he can obviously express his viewpoints better than I can.

I think that is a very good point.

[Vintage]

I know many fellow Texans who have talked about this issue long before Bush took office. In large part it is because many see the power in Washington with little control here in the state of Texas. We can't do nothing about our boarder issue because the law says that is a federal issue yet the feds do little about it and in the meantime we pay the price for this do nothing response by Washington.

By "they weren't great Patriots when Bush was President..."

I was actually referring to half of Hollywood when the celebs came out saying "waah, I wanna move to canada where they have freedom and milk and honey and health care and peaches and cream" type of crap....

[trickblue]

Sorry...I know the wing nuts in here expect everyone to bash Obummer, the antichrist, the stalin and whatever else they want to call him just because he is a dem and so on.

You forgot Maobama... ;)

[Doomsday101]

I don't have to agree with all things when it comes to political ideology. But I will give the man a chance to see if things turn around. I gave more than that to W when he took office and you seen where that got me.

Sorry...I know the wing nuts in here expect everyone to bash Obummer, the antichrist, the stalin and whatever else they want to call him just because he is a dem and so on.

I will give him time and a chance. Something I seen many claim they would do, but very few seem to be living up to that.

I just don't have that Obama derangement or hate syndrome like some of you do...yet.

I will even go one step further and say that during the election and to some extent since he has won, I have found myself not so much defending him at times...but arguing and being disgusted by some of the idiocy and pure hate filled posts by some in here that are against him. Some in here have been pretty pathetic in many ways concerning this guy IMO. That added to what I consider the loony conspiracy nuts.

It's kind of like when some come in here with the truther crap against W. And I don't like W and don't want to defend W, but at times I find myself defending him because of the style and or nature of the poster ripping on W.

Hope that makes sense. Probably won't because some in here are so ingrained with you are with us or against us to take their heads out of the backsides long enough to look at other reasons.:p:

Things will turn around but at what cost? As I said it is not about giving time or not giving time it is about standing up for what you feel is wrong or right. No matter how anyone wants to spin it the 700 billion bailout by Bush was wrong and it is not right now that Obama is in charge. With or without these bailouts the economy will recover but what is left behind afterwards is the issue. Having the feds even more powerful than ever before and a deficit that is going to cause this nation problems for years to come? Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter which party we are talking about. Another issue close to me is the immigration Bush was wrong from day 1 on that issue time was not an issue the policy being put into place was and still is the issue.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You forgot Maobama... ;)

:laugh1: At least that one sounds funny...I mean the Obummer one is just lame and not funny at all.

I thought people would just use BO for short and then say...you know BO for Body Oder.

But no...we get stuck with Obummer.

:(

I mean if you are going to make a funny name...at least make it kind of funny.

I still like Chimpy McFlightsuit for W.

[JBond]

I'm not trying to be Dr. Phyllis. But from my perspective, maybe it's because he doesn't really care about the "left" in this case.

JMO, but sometimes you attack the things you care most about. If those in charge on the "right" were doing what he thought was right, then maybe he wouldn't be blasting them every chance he got.

I'm just speculating, of course, and he can obviously express his viewpoints better than I can.

So he is a sympathetic leftist for Ron Paul?:confused:

That would be a pretty small group, I would imagine.

[JBond]

:laugh1: At least that one sounds funny...I mean the Obummer one is just lame and not funny at all.

I thought people would just use BO for short and then say...you know BO for Body Oder.

But no...we get stuck with Obummer.

:(

I mean if you are going to make a funny name...at least make it kind of funny.

I still like Chimpy McFlightsuit for W.

I ran with the BO moniker in the primaries. It did not have much staying power.

[Vintage]

So he is a sympathetic leftist for Ron Paul?:confused:

That would be a pretty small group, I would imagine.

No, he's actually Liberal.... not Leftist.


Liberal as in Liberalism... as in SMALL gov't, economic freedom, political freedom.....


Stuff neither the Democrats nor the Republicans adhere to. I see why many Republicans on here refer to him as a Democrat. A lot of that stuff is pretty foreign to the Republican party.

And vice versa for Democrats.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well I did vote for W the first time, I did support him going into Iraq and I did give it time with the Hurricane Katrina thing.

So Maybe I am willing to give Obama some time even if I did not vote for him.

Just something to consider.

It took me some time to get my W disgust and W derangement syndrome going, looks like some of you guys have got it going on from the get go.

I love how Cajun and some others run in here posting and article blasting Obama only to have it blow up in their face.

:laugh1:

What exactly has blown up in anyone's face? Stating it doesn't make it so.

[Cajuncowboy]

To be fair, it's not like Brain runs around pushing what is considered a liberal agenda either.


Ok so yeah I do get a chuckle out of that...not just Cajun either. To anyone who runs in posting "See! See! You're guy sucks!" Only to find out "D'oh, so does yours..."

Well, welcome to the church of "What's happening Now!" :rolleyes:

[TheCount]

No, he's actually Liberal.... not Leftist.


Liberal as in Liberalism... as in SMALL gov't, economic freedom, political freedom.....


Stuff neither the Democrats nor the Republicans adhere to. I see why many Republicans on here refer to him as a Democrat. A lot of that stuff is pretty foreign to the Republican party.

And vice versa for Democrats.

They refer to him, and everyone that disagrees with them on any point, as a "lib" or "left", rarely a Democrat. The ones that like to throw labels around that is.

[WoodysGirl]

Well, welcome to the church of "What's happening Now!" :rolleyes:
?? I'm not sure what you're getting at. You calling me Re-Run? I prefer Dee.

But you have to admit you did that when you were talking about Obama's entourage for the European trip...and it was proven later that Bush had the same amt.

It was worth a chuckle.

[Doomsday101]

They refer to him, and everyone that disagrees with them on any point, as a "lib" or "left", rarely a Democrat. The ones that like to throw labels around that is.

We consider his policy liberal. There are some in the democratic party who are considered moderates and they are having a hard time agreeing with the liberal agenda coming from the White house and the speaker of the house

[WoodysGirl]

They refer to him, and everyone that disagrees with them on any point, as a "lib" or "left", rarely a Democrat. The ones that like to throw labels around that is.
You may not see them as much since the election, but there was a segment who ran around yelling "righties" at everyone who disagreed.

[BrAinPaiNt]

They refer to him, and everyone that disagrees with them on any point, as a "lib" or "left", rarely a Democrat. The ones that like to throw labels around that is.

It is because they have that lame you are with us or against us mentality that bush and crew helped establish.

It was funny because when W was in office you rarely heard a peep out of many, but when he was out of office or McCain was running they started to change their tunes then.

The only thing you heard bad about W from most was his lax immigration/border security issues. Other than that if you said a word against him you were the enemy in their eyes, automatically a lefty liberal and so on.

That's why I say it is all about party for most of them no matter how much they argue otherwise.

[JBond]

No, he's actually Liberal.... not Leftist.


Liberal as in Liberalism... as in SMALL gov't, economic freedom, political freedom.....


Stuff neither the Democrats nor the Republicans adhere to. I see why many Republicans on here refer to him as a Democrat. A lot of that stuff is pretty foreign to the Republican party.

And vice versa for Democrats.

I know that. Just messing a little.

I consider myself more of a Constitutionalist/libertarian myself. Small government in almost every way. Fierce protector of states rights and limited interference from the federal government. Flat tax etc.

Whenever a proposal is put forth by either party I look to see it it is line with my understanding of the Constitution and the very specific powers if provides for for each area of government.

I give BP a hard time because he primarily beats on the republicans. Now that may be because the true leftist wacko dems are so far away from his views they do not deserve comment. I am getting that way myself, especially on this board. My strongest feelings/views come out when discussing ideas with fellow "conservatives" that do not seem to have a conservative bone in their body and are hijacking what the conservative movement was under Reagan.

Reagan may have well been a libertarian if he were alive today. We know he dumped the Dems when they took a giant step to the left. I would think he would be equally disappointed in today's Rinos.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I know that. Just messing a little.

I consider myself more of a Constitutionalist/libertarian myself. Small government in almost every way. Fierce protector of states rights and limited interference from the federal government. Flat tax etc.

Whenever a proposal is put forth by either party I look to see it it is line with my understanding of the Constitution and the very specific powers if provides for for each area of government.

I give BP a hard time because he primarily beats on the republicans. Now that may be because the true leftist wacko dems are so far away from his views they do not deserve comment. I am getting that way myself, especially on this board. My strongest feelings/views come out when discussing ideas with fellow "conservatives" that do not seem to have a conservative bone in their body and are hijacking what the conservative movement meant under Reagan.

Reagan may have well been a libertarian if he were alive today. We know he dumped the Dems when they took a giant step to the left. I would think he would be equally disappointed in today's Rinos.

As much as I loved Reagan. I think people forget that the man did raise taxes at times, did pull out of the middle east, was not hardcore on immigration, told Air Traffic controllers they would be fired if they did not get back to work and had the whole Iran/Contra affair happening under his administration.

I don't think people remember some of those things and some of those things would be ripped big time if a person named Obama did the same thing.

Just something to consider. As much as I loved Reagan I also happen to think that he was the start of what went wrong with the republican party concerning some gaining too much power to persuade the direction of the party.

By far the best President in my lifetime but also had his warts, like most politicians.

I will add another thing that I find funny. People on here on almost a daily basis, due to it being part of GOP talking points, have to bring up the teleprompter all the time. Funny thing is who was the last president that did not use Teleprompters for speeches? I mean Obama is the best at giving speeches since Reagan. However people don't seem to remember the Ronald used teleprompters as well and when he was not using teleprompters he would sometimes use um and well a good deal when he was thinking of his responses. But something so trivial has become such a big deal that it has to be brought up daily. Oh Noes a president uses a teleprompter.

[TheCount]

You may not see them as much since the election, but there was a segment who ran around yelling "righties" at everyone who disagreed.

I've got no doubt there were. I treat everyone as an individual, I put the worst of them on ignore a while ago.

I enjoy arguing with Cajun because even if I don't agree with him, and I rarely do, he doesn't just resort to the same squawking that those guys do.

I'd have put the "rightie" people on that same short list.

[Cajuncowboy]

?? I'm not sure what you're getting at. You calling me Re-Run? I prefer Dee.

But you have to admit you did that when you were talking about Obama's entourage for the European trip...and it was proven later that Bush had the same amt.

It was worth a chuckle.

And I freely admitted that. IT wasn't that big of a deal and nowhere nearly as important as some of the things he has done. It was a point about my first hand knowledge of what Bush had with him when we had him at an event.

As for the Church of What's happening now thing, it's about what's going on now and not what happened in the past.

Love how people want to bring up Bush as if it somehow mitigates what Obama is doing.

So chuckle on.

[Rogah]

It is because they have that lame you are with us or against us mentality that bush and crew helped establish.With all due respect, I think we see plenty of that from both sides both in here and in the public political arena.

[burmafrd]

Brain maybe its because you sound like the democratic talking points lately.

a lot of us criticised bush and particularly the congressional republicans in orther areas llike the out of control spending and too much rolling over on other issues. You have a VERY convienent memory.

[burmafrd]

And Brain you have a LOT of NERVE saying its the republicans that are just doing the "for us or against us" chant. So frankly you do sound like a Democratic Shill lately.

[Vintage]

Brain maybe its because you sound like the democratic talking points lately.

a lot of us criticised bush and particularly the congressional republicans in orther areas llike the out of control spending and too much rolling over on other issues. You have a VERY convienent memory.

Small gov't and fiscal responsibility is a democrat talking point? Must have missed that.

But at least you admit it - that it aint a Republican talking point.

[WoodysGirl]

And I freely admitted that. IT wasn't that big of a deal and nowhere nearly as important as some of the things he has done. It was a point about my first hand knowledge of what Bush had with him when we had him at an event. I know that and wasn't discounting it either. My point is we do this all the time, either in the PZ or the other forums. When an ownage takes place, it's funny. Lighten up, Cajun.

As for the Church of What's happening now thing, it's about what's going on now and not what happened in the past.Well you brought up something that now you consider minor without being aware of it being standard protocol...in the past and the present.

Love how people want to bring up Bush as if it somehow mitigates what Obama is doing.The point is if Obama had done something different than what Bush did, then yeah you would've had a point. And most folks who are in line with your opinion would've nodded their heads in agreement how Obama is bad.

In this one instance I'm discussing, turns out it was standard protocol and that Obama as well as Bush did the same thing, so yes it does mitigate what Obama did.
So chuckle on.
Thank you, I will. :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

And Brain you have a LOT of NERVE saying its the republicans that are just doing the "for us or against us" chant. So frankly you do sound like a Democratic Shill lately.

You sound like a republican shill ALL THE TIME...not just conservative, REPUBLICAN.

Thanks:laugh1:

[iceberg]

Brain maybe its because you sound like the democratic talking points lately.

a lot of us criticised bush and particularly the congressional republicans in orther areas llike the out of control spending and too much rolling over on other issues. You have a VERY convienent memory.

burm - not trying to pick a fight, really...but how can you tell someone else they're a poster child for 1 side when you're just as dug into your own side? in all my years here i don't recall you doing anything other than being angry at how stupid the other side is.

[JBond]

As much as I loved Reagan. I think people forget that the man did raise taxes at times, did pull out of the middle east, was not hardcore on immigration, told Air Traffic controllers they would be fired if they did not get back to work and had the whole Iran/Contra affair happening under his administration.

I don't think people remember some of those things and some of those things would be ripped big time if a person named Obama did the same thing.

Just something to consider. As much as I loved Reagan I also happen to think that he was the start of what went wrong with the republican party concerning some gaining too much power to persuade the direction of the party.

By far the best President in my lifetime but also had his warts, like most politicians.

I will add another thing that I find funny. People on here on almost a daily basis, due to it being part of GOP talking points, have to bring up the teleprompter all the time. Funny thing is who was the last president that did not use Teleprompters for speeches? I mean Obama is the best at giving speeches since Reagan. However people don't seem to remember the Ronald used teleprompters as well and when he was not using teleprompters he would sometimes use um and well a good deal when he was thinking of his responses. But something so trivial has become such a big deal that it has to be brought up daily. Oh Noes a president uses a teleprompter.

Reagan made the biggest tax cuts and reforms in the income tax system in the history of our country. You know it. I know it. Even the most extreme leftist on this board know it. Was there some back and forth because of the democrat controlled congress. Yes there was. Do you have a point about that? It's not like it is some hidden secret. Dems back them want to tax and spend and redistribute just like Obama does today. Nothing new there. Right? Same old playbook.

As far as the middle east goes. Well, they have always been a group of nuts jobs and they will always be nut jobs. It is who they are. I did like Reagan's response to Libya and the bombings. He did a tremendous job with the USSR also. Obama is having trouble with Iran and North Korea, as Bush did. Just wait until the new Russia starts up again or China takes Taiwan. Then Obama will have a real test. The only thing we know for sure is if Iraq had been left up to Obama it would have been a disastrous failure. We all know why, so there is no reason to pretend differently.

As far as your Teleprompter and chief rambling, what is your point? Especially in a response to me. Obama has been billed one of the greatest orators in the last 50 years, equal to Reagan at the very least. Yet time and again he is bumbling and stumbling and screwing up the most simple of thoughts. Personally I hated when Bush did it and I hate it when Obama does it. Now looking back at the last eight years, I would say Bush would have been wise to rely more on the teleprompter to tell him what to say, but that was not his style for whatever reason.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Reagan made the biggest tax cuts and reforms in the income tax system in the history of our country. You know it. I know it. Even the most extreme leftist on this board know it. Was there some back and forth because of the democrat controlled congress. Yes there was. Do you have a point about that? It's not like it is some hidden secret. Dems back them want to tax and spend and redistribute just like Obama does today. Nothing new there. Right? Same old playbook.

Just that he too raised taxes at times and if any Dem does it now...well they are socialists. So I guess he too was a socialist at a time. Sounds silly for either IMO, But I guess it depends on if you have an R in front of your name or not in depending if you are a tax and spend liberal and socialist.

As far as the middle east goes. Well, they have always been a group of nuts jobs and they will always be nut jobs. It is who they are. I did like Reagan's response to Libya and the bombings. He did a tremendous job with the USSR also. Obama is having trouble with Iran and North Korea, as Bush did. Just wait until the new Russia starts up again or China takes Taiwan. Then Obama will have a real test. The only thing we know for sure is if Iraq had been left up to Obama it would have been a disastrous failure. We all know why, so there is no reason to pretend differently.

You mean we should spend spend spend and out spend the USSR again? Not exactly fiscally conservative idea to achieve the goal, but it did work.

As far as your Teleprompter and chief rambling, what is your point? Especially in a response to me. Obama has been billed one of the greatest orators in the last 50 years, equal to Reagan at the very least. Yet time and again he is bumbling and stumbling and screwing up the most simple of thoughts. Personally I hated when Bush did it and I hate it when Obama does it. Now looking back at the last eight years, I would say Bush would have been wise to rely more on the teleprompter to tell him what to say, but that was not his style for whatever reason.

I added into my ramblings after I made my initial post. It was to those who are constantly ragging on the teleprompter but I bet the vast majority of those whining and bringing up the teleprompter so often now, had or have no problem with Reagan using it back then. I think people forget what he sounded like when he was not doing his speeches. He was made fun of quite a bit for his ums and Well...Well at the start of each reply while he collected his thoughts.

It is something most presidents will do when they are trying to collect their thoughts and answer a question. But again...on a daily basis some in here are yelling teleprompter and it is a standard GOP talking point to do so.

So if it applies to Obama, does it also apply to Reagan. Somehow I think I don't think the majority would say it for Reagan in here...you know the same ones talking about it with Obama. The funniest part of it is, it is so trivial. I mean I can think of many other things to rag on him for and yet we still go with the teleprompter. It is almost as if some in here are reading these GOP talking points from a teleprompter themselves.:laugh2:

[vta]

Just that he too raised taxes at times and if any Dem does it now...well they are socialists. So I guess he too was a socialist at a time. Sounds silly for either IMO, But I guess it depends on if you have an R in front of your name or not in depending if you are a tax and spend liberal and socialist.

Wouldn't the difference be in where that funding is spent?
'Raising Taxes' isn't a catch phrase, easily applicable as a character identifier.

What did Reagan do with his spending and what is Obama planning to do with his? I think the answer to this is where the difference lies...

[Cajuncowboy]

Just that he too raised taxes at times and if any Dem does it now...well they are socialists.

It's not JUST raising taxes that makes them a socialist. You have the weakening of our military, the acquiescence to the terrorists, the dialog with dictators, the government mandated health care, the governmental take over of private industry.

You like to say "Just because" but it's not JUST a particular thing. ITts all of it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's not JUST raising taxes that makes them a socialist. You have the weakening of our military, the acquiescence to the terrorists, the dialog with dictators, the government mandated health care, the governmental take over of private industry.

You like to say "Just because" but it's not JUST a particular thing. ITts all of it.

We had a great president that said those in the middle east were nuts and brought our boys home. i would imagine some over thought that looked weak. We had an administration that sold weapons to a terrorist country (iran). He did raise taxes more than once.

So does that mean Reagan was a spineless guy that liked to raise taxes and spend great deals of money, like many would claim is a liberal? No of course it does not.

Just like everything Obama does is not the move of an evil socialist hell bent on ruining the country.

Now I know you your mind it does because you are a party first kind of guy and anyone in the white house that is not a Republican is an abomination. Hey there you go another lame name for you to use Obomination.:laugh2: At least it is better sounding that Obummer.

[ShiningStar]

Its like a dam. Well, its just a tiny whole, who cares, lets see where it goes. Than its two holes, well we still have a dam, lets see where it goes. Than its 3 tiny holes, but the whole wall is still there. Lets see what happens, give it time. Than you have 2 bigger holes, but its still not bad. Than you have 5 greater holes, but you still have a dam. Than when you are ready to fix the holes, the dam broke. Ooo, we still have land, the water will have to go somewhere.

Its like saying, well if we see where Hitler goes, maybe it wont be so, GOD DANG SOMEONE SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vintage]

It's not JUST raising taxes that makes them a socialist. You have the weakening of our military, the acquiescence to the terrorists, the dialog with dictators, the government mandated health care, the governmental take over of private industry.

You like to say "Just because" but it's not JUST a particular thing. ITts all of it.

What does that have to do with Socialism?

[Bob Sacamano]

What does that have to do with Socialism?

the last 2 are socialist, esp. the last one

[Vintage]

the last 2 are socialist, esp. the last one


Guess I shouldn't have highlighted the entire thing.

[DaBoys4Life]

What does that have to do with Socialism?

I think with the military obama wants to move to a civilian military for which is what the nazi where.

Government in the private sector look at china.

Nationalized health care is also move towards communism its slips my mind at the second however when I think of it I will go more in depth

The dictator and terrorist is a stretch however, democracy doesn't support dictatorships or terrorism.

[Cajuncowboy]

What does that have to do with Socialism?

Would you be more comfortable with extreme liberalism?

In the end all of it is dangerous to our nation and to our freedoms.

[Cajuncowboy]

We had a great president that said those in the middle east were nuts and brought our boys home. i would imagine some over thought that looked weak. We had an administration that sold weapons to a terrorist country (iran). He did raise taxes more than once.

So does that mean Reagan was a spineless guy that liked to raise taxes and spend great deals of money, like many would claim is a liberal? No of course it does not.

Just like everything Obama does is not the move of an evil socialist hell bent on ruining the country.

Now I know you your mind it does because you are a party first kind of guy and anyone in the white house that is not a Republican is an abomination. Hey there you go another lame name for you to use Obomination.:laugh2: At least it is better sounding that Obummer.

Do you even know what we sold to Iran? It's not like we sold them much at all to work with.

As for the taxes, even Reagan said it was the one thing that bothered him the most. And it was forced on him by the Dems.

Nobama, Obummer, Obomanation (that's old), or whatever you want to call him is purposely trying to do this. One goes kicking and screaming into tax hikes and the other sprints wildly in its direction.

I know even you can see the difference.

[BigWillie]

Would you be more comfortable with extreme liberalism?

In the end all of it is dangerous to our nation and to our freedoms.

There are only three dangerous things in this country.

1.) Watching a white man try to dance and/or rap

2.) An Asian behind the wheel.

3.) A Republican in political office.

Besides that, stuff is usually pretty good in this country.

[Cajuncowboy]

There are only three dangerous things in this country.

1.) Watching a white man try to dance and/or rap

2.) An Asian behind the wheel.

3.) A Republican in political office.

Besides that, stuff is usually pretty good in this country.

Lame! :rolleyes:

[Vintage]

Would you be more comfortable with extreme liberalism?

In the end all of it is dangerous to our nation and to our freedoms.

Socialism is not liberalism.

Especially economic liberalism.

[Cajuncowboy]

Socialism is not liberalism.

Especially economic liberalism.

So he is taking us in a socialistic liberal direction.

Better?

It's the worst of all worlds.

[Common Sense]

I think with the military obama wants to move to a civilian military for which is what the nazi where.

Government in the private sector look at china.

Nationalized health care is also move towards communism its slips my mind at the second however when I think of it I will go more in depth

The dictator and terrorist is a stretch however, democracy doesn't support dictatorships or terrorism.

Civilian militias were a part of what the founding fathers had in mind for this country and are a major reason we have the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. A lot has been said about Obama's stance on a civilian military, but at this point I'm not sure what's factual and what's hearsay.

Reagan was for the possibility of nationalizing banks, and it even happened to many smaller banks in the early 80s under his watch. It's true, it occurred, it's well documented, so don't even try to argue.

Nationalized health care is a tricky topic, but I will say this: the American health care system is NOT based on free market principles. It's corrupt, it's broken, and it's a "capitalist system" only in the sense that powerful bureaucrats are capitalizing off of everyday people like you and I without anyone really knowing what's actually going on.

The United States once had the best health care system in the entire world. Now we're only a couple notches above Cuba. If you want to sum up what our health care system has become now, you wouldn't be far off by saying "For the corporations, by the corporations."

Major, comprehensive reform is absolutely needed. Not a band-aid solution.. a complete overhaul. That doesn't necessarily have to include nationalization, but at this point it sure looks like what France has is a hell of a lot better than what we're headed for if we don't make serious changes.

[Bach]

Guy opened fire on cops, killing 3 and injuring 2, because he believed Obama was going to take away his guns.

So, it looks to me like Obama caused this.

[MetalHead]

There are only three dangerous things in this country.

1.) Watching a white man try to dance and/or rap

2.) An Asian behind the wheel.

3.) A Republican in political office.

Besides that, stuff is usually pretty good in this country.
Leave the funny stuff for me,will you?

[Common Sense]

Thomas Payne has entered the building.

'Tis all true, sad to say.

[MetalHead]

'Tis all true, sad to say.


We'll get America back.
It will be a combination of those who love this great land,those who grew abroad and tasted first hand the horrors of corruption and LEGALLY came here, and those tired of the clowns running Washington.
I have seen how it can be...how this great country is headed.
All the signs are there.I have seen this movie before.

[Vintage]

We'll get America back.
It will be a combination of those who love this great land,those who grew abroad and tasted first hand the horrors of corruption and LEGALLY came here, and those tired of the clowns running Washington.
I have seen how it can be...how this great country is headed.
All the signs are there.I have seen this movie before.



And Palin will bring that change! (Or Obama if you're a Democrat... and by you're... I don't mean you specificially, Artie).


















lulz.

[Common Sense]

Palin scares me.

[vta]

Reagan was for the possibility of nationalizing banks, and it even happened to many smaller banks in the early 80s under his watch. It's true, it occurred, it's well documented, so don't even try to argue.


No he wasn't.
James Baker floated the idea that it might be necessary in a temporary situation, making it clear he did not like the idea.


And which banks were nationalized under Reagan?

[MetalHead]

Palin scares me.

I mispelled the name....Thomas PAIN.

[Common Sense]

No he wasn't.
James Baker floated the idea that it might be necessary in a temporary situation, making it clear he did not like the idea.


And which banks were nationalized under Reagan?

What about Continental Illinois, or the savings and loans bailouts in the late 80s/early 90s?

And the idea wasn't just floated around the FDIC actually had a plan in place around 1982 to nationalize the banking sector if one of the Latin American countries defaulted on its debt.

[Common Sense]

I mispelled the name....Thomas PAIN.

Ha... isn't it Paine?

[trickblue]

There are only three dangerous things in this country.

1.) Watching a white man try to dance and/or rap

2.) An Asian behind the wheel.

3.) A Republican in political office.

Besides that, stuff is usually pretty good in this country.

You've obviously never seem me strut my stuff...

:fogeys:

btw... you need to include more stereotypes to be valid, otherwise you could be termed as racist... ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

The only irony would be is if what I were saying was false.


It is false. It's absolutely fallacy to equate the Norris' article with the actions of the PA shooter.

[vta]

What about Continental Illinois, or the savings and loans bailouts in the late 80s/early 90s?

And the idea wasn't just floated around the FDIC actually had a plan in place around 1982 to nationalize the banking sector if one of the Latin American countries defaulted on its debt.

It was bailed out and the fed had a percentage of ownership, but it was temporary. Continental Ill is now Bank of America, which isn't nationalized.

I see your point though.

Having a plan in place in case of an eventuality is one thing, doing it is another.

[ethiostar]

It was bailed out and the fed had a percentage of ownership, but it was temporary. Continental Ill is now Bank of America, which isn't nationalized.

I see your point though.

Having a plan in place in case of an eventuality is one thing, doing it is another.

I thought the current proposal is also supposed to be temporary? Am i wrong?

[Common Sense]

It was bailed out and the fed had a percentage of ownership, but it was temporary. Continental Ill is now Bank of America, which isn't nationalized.

I see your point though.

Having a plan in place in case of an eventuality is one thing, doing it is another.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I used the term somewhat loosely.. technically Sweden never actually "nationalized" its banks, but that's the example you hear most often. Theirs were also re-privatized.

Every president since Carter has been doing this, and it's almost always supposed to be because the institution being bailed out is "too big to fail."

Interestingly enough, Jefferson once said of the banking sector, "I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens."

That was in a letter to John Taylor where he later said that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.

[burmafrd]

The old saw that the pen is mightier then the sword - but the sword will cut deeply more quickly.

[BigWillie]

You've obviously never seem me strut my stuff...

:fogeys:

btw... you need to include more stereotypes to be valid, otherwise you could be termed as racist... ;)

I'm not racist. I hate white people. And remember, Spike Lee said you can't be racist if you hate white people. :)

[JBond]

There are only three dangerous things in this country.

1.) Watching a white man try to dance and/or rap

2.) An Asian behind the wheel.

3.) A Republican in political office.

Besides that, stuff is usually pretty good in this country.

What are we going to do about the blacks? Come on Big Willie. Step up to the plate kid. You equated the nut in Pittsburgh with republicans. Borrowing your demented logic what are we going to do about the blacks. They keep killing police officers. Should we assume all blacks want to kill police officers? Some people who happen to be black just kidnapped and robbed my neighbor. Should I assume all blacks will attempt the same thing?

[Doomsday101]

I'm not racist. I hate white people. And remember, Spike Lee said you can't be racist if you hate white people. :)

You got to love spike, white producers are accused of promoting a stereo type of the black community in movies yet Spike does the same thing and is loved for it.

[JBond]

I'm not racist. I hate white people. And remember, Spike Lee said you can't be racist if you hate white people. :)

Spike Lee is an ***. Anyone that quotes him or takes him even a little bit serious can not be that high on the food chain. Not a bit surprised you would quote a racist.:) I added a smiley. That way anything I say is OK.

[BigWillie]

Spike Lee is an ***. Anyone that quotes him or takes him even a little bit serious can not be that high on the food chain. Not a bit surprised you would quote a racist.:) I added a smiley. That way anything I say is OK.

Once you grab the pliers to pull your undies from riding too high, you will realize I'm a pasty white fat kid from Redneckville USA. :D

Man, some of you all take message boards a tad bit too seriously.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Once you grab the pliers to pull your undies from riding too high, you will realize I'm a pasty white fat kid from Redneckville USA. :D

Man, some of you all take message boards a tad bit too seriously.

If you are not with them...YOU HATE AMERICA!!!111!
:p: