And those good ol boy's were democrates...The US was much better without government intervention when a good ol boy was free to murder niggers at will without those pesky lawmen getting in the way
And those good ol boy's were democrates...The US was much better without government intervention when a good ol boy was free to murder niggers at will without those pesky lawmen getting in the way
You mean Washington DC got us beat? Doesn't surprise me...I find it interesting that the gun-death rate is twice as high per-100,000 population in gun-control Washington DC as in gun-wild Texas.
Funny joke on me. The People's Cube is a fun satire on total leftists, and the frontpagemag was fairly funny but not as entertaining. I did a site search on leftist revolution on frontpage but didn't see any new info about the leftist revolution except that billionaire Soros presumably started a failed revolution, and the usual stuff about Obama. Most of the stuff was about Arabic revolutions.That is by far the most intelligent thing you have ever written here, but that is not saying much. I agree with it for the most part, but I voted for Romney because Ron Paul did not run. I prefer a progressive Neocon over a progressive Socialist. You prefer the socialist.
I am tired of educating uninformed liberals. But out of the goodness of my heart you can start here: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
and here: http://frontpagemag.com/
That is by far the most intelligent thing you have ever written here, but that is not saying much. I agree with it for the most part, but I voted for Romney because Ron Paul did not run. I prefer a progressive Neocon over a progressive Socialist. You prefer the socialist.
I am tired of educating uninformed liberals. But out of the goodness of my heart you can start here: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
and here: http://frontpagemag.com/
Funny joke on me. The People's Cube is a fun satire on total leftists, and the frontpagemag was fairly funny but not as entertaining. I did a site search on leftist revolution on frontpage but didn't see any new info about the leftist revolution except that billionaire Soros presumably started a failed revolution, and the usual stuff about Obama. Most of the stuff was about Arabic revolutions.
Now I am in a quandary. Are you serious about these sites as representing what leftist are, or are you just pulling my leg. Either way I'm not convinced that there is a leftist revolution nearly to the extent that there is a nascent rightist revolution with a potential for high firepower. You need to give me more explicit references.
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.Spend a little more time on frontpage.com. It might come to you, but sorry, I can't guarantee you will ever exit your terribly uninformed existence.
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.
You have to remember that insults are a poor way to support an argument.
But of course Obama is left, as most Democrats are.Hmmm lets try this...
Do you see Obama as leftist ?
No... probably not worth proceeding
Yes... do you find his actions that ignore law troubling (not getting Congressional approval on the Libyan actions, ordering ICE to stand down on deportations among others) ?
No.. got to ask why not
Yes... are these not signals that the left is systematically countermanding the Constitution ? And is doing so not a (to date and forgetting Fast & Furious etc) form of bloodless revolution ?
We are talking about a leftist revolution that is supposed to be happening. You say I'm terribly uninformed about it. You give me two references that don't have any leads to it even though I used their site search. I really don't think you have any facts about an ongoing leftist revolution and are either making it up, or terribly uninformed yourself.The leftist revolutionary tact is stated clearly in the "Bible" of leftist progressives, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her Senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. Barack Obama taught Alinsky's philosophy to ACORN and other activists groups while a community organizer in Chicago. The left embraces Saul Alinsky and his philosophy. The actions of the Democrat party are based soley on Alinsky's teachings and those of Cloward and Piven! These people are unadulterated scum!
This philosophy is much like Hitler's Mein Kampf in that it's so decadent and so self-serving that it's dificult to believe he really means what he says. Hitler believed what he said, and so did Alinsky and his followers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! What did Alinsky believe that made such a impact on two of the most powerful and influential leftists of the past 30 years?? Read below, all from Alinsky's aforementioned book:
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp. 10 -11 In other words, "Truth" is whatever you need to say it is in order to get what you want!
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. The real arena is corrupt and bloody."... pp. 10-11 The meaning here is 100% clear; i.e., The end justifies the means!
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p. 29 Clearly stated!
"The seventh rule.... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics." p. 14 In other words, Don't worry about what's good or evil, do whatever achieves victory.
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". p. 26 In other words, use whatever you have in any manner necessary to gain victory, but pretend you're doing it for some higher and more-moral purpose than just gaining power.
The above "rules" are those used by the Democrat party. When your opponent's philosophy clearly states that he'll do ANYTHING needed to gain and maintain power, one can assume he means what he says; i,e., ANYTHING!
One of the major complaints non-believers level against Christianity is that the churches are full of hypocrites.Christianity should not be judged on the basis of those who claim to be its adherents, when, in reality, they practice the opposite of what it teaches.Funny how you automatically assume left leaning politics to be bad
If Jesus Christ had existed he would have been a socialist
He would have wanted peace, to look after the poor, to not worship money and to be meek
In fact the very opposite of you guys who claim to follow him with your love of war and hatred of the poor and your adoration of money
But then you don't let the few good bits of Christianity get in the way of your half witted hate filled agendas do you
More guns, more guns
Guns, gotta have more guns
It seems that every presidential nominee, no matter what side he's on does ANYTHING to gain power, and if he is an incumbent, will do ANYTHING to stay in power. That's the way things are, and both sides have to grit their teeth and live with it... and hopefully not finance the NRA to help them amass high power automatic weaponry to try to swing power their way.Yada yada {old leftist has-beens}.... Hitler's Mein Kampf... anything to stay in power ...
The leftist revolutionary tact is stated clearly in the "Bible" of leftist progressives, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her Senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. Barack Obama taught Alinsky's philosophy to ACORN and other activists groups while a community organizer in Chicago. The left embraces Saul Alinsky and his philosophy. The actions of the Democrat party are based soley on Alinsky's teachings and those of Cloward and Piven! These people are unadulterated scum!
This philosophy is much like Hitler's Mein Kampf in that it's so decadent and so self-serving that it's dificult to believe he really means what he says. Hitler believed what he said, and so did Alinsky and his followers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! What did Alinsky believe that made such a impact on two of the most powerful and influential leftists of the past 30 years?? Read below, all from Alinsky's aforementioned book:
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp. 10 -11 In other words, "Truth" is whatever you need to say it is in order to get what you want!
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. The real arena is corrupt and bloody."... pp. 10-11 The meaning here is 100% clear; i.e., The end justifies the means!
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p. 29 Clearly stated!
"The seventh rule.... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics." p. 14 In other words, Don't worry about what's good or evil, do whatever achieves victory.
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments". p. 26 In other words, use whatever you have in any manner necessary to gain victory, but pretend you're doing it for some higher and more-moral purpose than just gaining power.
The above "rules" are those used by the Democrat party. When your opponent's philosophy clearly states that he'll do ANYTHING needed to gain and maintain power, one can assume he means what he says; i,e., ANYTHING!
I clicked on it the attachment and it returned "The requested attachment could not be found."
Funny how you automatically assume left leaning politics to be bad
If Jesus Christ had existed he would have been a socialist
He would have wanted peace, to look after the poor, to not worship money and to be meek
In fact the very opposite of you guys who claim to follow him with your love of war and hatred of the poor and your adoration of money
But then you don't let the few good bits of Christianity get in the way of your half witted hate filled agendas do you
More guns, more guns
Guns, gotta have more guns