Yes cowardly, and I love when some of you loonies use apples and oranges as comparisons. The childish comments about Bush and is record are VERY telling. Bush trained in and flew a mach 1 plus F102.. getting through pilot training is no picnic either. Ron Paul is attempting to RUN from the Middle east problem that has been building for the better part of 60 years. Pretending that surrendering to and then running from the problem will solve something. Running is a waste of time. This enemy isn't going to stop.

When Ron Paul uses the constitution, he uses it as a political prop. The Constitution is fine and dandy, it also can be used as the weapon for our own destruction. So you dummies wrapping yourself in the constitution are doing nothing but allowing those who mean to destroy the country freer access.

There are more and more minorities joining the conservative side of the isle, wasting time trying to woo people who will not nor EVER vote for a Republican is wasted effort.

 

Fozzy said:

Fozzy: If you can... and without all the insults and references to tin foil hats and such.... I would love to hear you expound on these individual themes/statements.

Please don't lump them all together if possible. Pretend YOU are a candidate, and support your position.

I fancy myself as a Constitutionalist above all else. As such, and although I believe in the need for SOME form of gun controls, I do not have a problem with the Second Ammendment.... and don't see how that will lead to our downfall.

I also believe that Congress should enact laws, and oversee the Executive Branch. Though I believe they are all a bunch of crooks, I don't see how being "concerned" about their being left out of the loop gives our enemies any freer access.

I look forward to your clarification, and appreciate your time.

Hobo

 

Fozzy

Quote

When Ron Paul uses the constitution, he uses it as a political prop. The Constitution is fine and dandy, it also can be used as the weapon for our own destruction. So you dummies wrapping yourself in the constitution are doing nothing but allowing those who mean to destroy the country freer access.

---The Constitution is a prop? Maybe I do need a tin foil cap. Please explain to me how abolishing our freedoms and liberties, granted by the Constitution of the United States makes us safer? What are you (and they) going to replace it with? Something more socialist? Or more fascist? Whatever it is, I am sure there will be NO second amendment. And I especially want you to obey the “new law,” and happily forgo your previous second amendment rights.

---The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.- Thomas Jefferson

Quote

There are more and more minorities joining the conservative side of the isle, wasting time trying to woo people who will not nor EVER vote for a Republican is wasted effort.

---This statement doesn’t even makes sense. But I’ll try. LOL. OK, is what your saying is that, “even though more and more minorities are joining the conservative side of the isle,” Vying for MORE of their votes is a waste of time? Do they already have enough? They filled their roster?

But if they don’t wish to fight or “woo” for every Americans’ vote, isn’t that the same as “cut and run?”

---I won't even get started on the Middle East.

 

I completely disagree with that statement. The Republican candidates need to sit on the sidelines for now. The spotlight is completely on the Democrats right now and people are not liking what they see. Clinton don't feel no ways tired yet, she come to far from where she started..... enough said about that. Obama wrote one good speech and people got behind him, put him on stage with the other candidates and he's a fumbling idiot. Edwards and the others..... lets be honest, they are running to collect money to buy favors from the top running candidates for a later date.

Wait till the time draws closer, the Republicans will come out when everyone wants to see different faces when the Democrats wear out their welcome.

The Democrats are letting the EASIEST chance to get back in the white house slip through their fingers. The Republicans don't have to fight for it because the Democrats are gift wrapping it for them.

 

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns...-insulting.php

Hillary Clinton Is Just Insulting

Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Sep 14, 2007

Any self-respecting man should be offended by how today's leading Democrats are addressing black audiences. The only thing worse, perhaps, is that some of those same audiences are taken in by it.

“I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe He brought me this far,” drawled presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, mimicking black voice to a black audience, at the First Baptist Church of Selma, Alabama.

I’m wondering if Mrs. Clinton visits an Indian reservation she might cozy up to them saying, “How! Me not tired. Me come heap long way. Road mighty rough. Sky Spirit no bring me this far.”

Or, seeking the Asian vote she might say, “I no wray tired. Come too far I started flum. Road berry clooked. Number one Dragon King take me far.”

The occasion of Mrs. Clinton’s speech was the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, on March 7, 1965, when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by police with billy clubs, cattle prods and tear gas, one of the high points in the black civil rights struggle.

Commemorating a key point in American history is one thing, but a white person mimicking black dialect is demeaning and insulting. And, if it buys her votes from those in attendance, not much flattering can be said about them.

Mrs. Clinton later explained her drawl, around black audiences, to a meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists, “I lived all those years in Arkansas, and, you know, I’m in this interracial marriage.” The interracial marriage bit has to do with the frequent reference to former President Clinton, by the Congressional Black Caucus and others, as the “first black president.”

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in demeaning talk to black people; she’s in good company with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who talk of “going from the outhouse to the White House” and “from disgrace to amazing grace” and other such nonsense. Neither Clinton nor Revs. Sharpton and Jackson address white audiences in that manner.

Before a predominantly black audience, during his 2004 presidential bid, Sen. John Kerry said, in reference to so many blacks in prison, “That’s unacceptable, but it’s not their fault.” I doubt whether Kerry would have told a white audience that jailed white people were faultless. Kerry probably holds whites responsible for their criminal behavior.

In 2004, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said of President George Bush, “We have a president that’s prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance.” During the 2000 presidential campaign, Rev. Jesse Jackson warned black audiences by telling them that a Bush win would turn the civil rights clock back to the days of Jim Crow.

Now that Bush’s two-term presidency is near its end, why wouldn’t someone ask Jesse and Kweisi about the accuracy of their predictions?

Suppose some demagogue in 2000 told Jewish Americans that a Bush presidency would mean concentration camps, or told Japanese-Americans that his presidency would mean internment? Do you think such pronouncements would have been welcomed and applauded? I’m sure that had someone made such a stupid prediction to Jewish and Japanese-Americans, they would have had ridicule and scorn heaped upon them.

What does it say about blacks who can be taken in by pandering, alarmist nonsense from both whites and blacks as a means to get their votes?

As a black man, I don’t find the most obvious answer very flattering.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He has authored more than 150 publications, including many in scholarly journals, and has frequently given expert testimony before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor policy to taxation and spending.

 

golfhobo

Thank you for your sanity of thought and opinions. Here is another quote from Thomas Jefferson I hope you also find enlightning.


---"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson.

Good luck.

 

This will or should answer both Golfhobo and Gordo...

---The Constitution is a prop? Maybe I do need a tin foil cap.

For politician you bet! and the tin foil? its almost a certainty

Please explain to me how abolishing our freedoms and liberties, granted by the Constitution of the United States makes us safer?

Just who do you consider "our" and "us". Our and Us means everyone right? (this is a loaded question) If you can explain who does not get total protection from the government intrusions that you are eluding too without limiting the freedoms of someone, you'll explain why this loss of freedom / liberty hysteria is nothing more than asshattery

What are you (and they) going to replace it with?

Replace it? Who said that? There were amendments to the constitution for a reason.There have also been times in this country's history where there were limits places on the constitution and there were broader powers given to the government to protect the citizens of the country.

Something more socialist? Or more fascist? Whatever it is, I am sure there will be NO second amendment. And I especially want you to obey the “new law,” and happily forgo your previous second amendment rights.

The second amendment didn't enter my mind in this topic, nor does it matter to this discussion unless you think that "joe six pack" is going to be able to end the problems that we face as a world and nation. They CAN'T!

 

Fozzy


1.) How can the constitution be used as a weapon for our own destruction?
2.) How does following the constitution allow those meaning to destroy our country, freer access?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let me make a futile attempt I’m sure, at trying to break down the somewhat incoherent and rambling question, and attempt to figure out what you are asking.

“who does not get total protection from gov’t intrusions without limiting the freedoms of someone?

Is this a Yogi-ism?

Golfhobo? Ben45750? Anyone? Sorry, I’m going to “cut and run” you guys/gals answer this one.

 

The constitution is there for the exact reason to protect us from the government. However, in the face of terrorism, our elected officials have found new ways, ie the Patriot Act. Thankfully, the courts have systematically reversed portions of this terrible legislation, due in part to judges following the constitution.

 

What part is terrible.. better yet.. what makes it terrible and please convey the victims of this terrible act.