Unchained Preppers
General Category => News & Politics => Topic started by: Skippy00004 on January 12, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
-
http://youtu.be/EQwrB1vu74c (http://youtu.be/EQwrB1vu74c)
-
Yeah, it's sickening isn't it? And Fox News seems to have lined up solidly behind him. For the past three weeks they've been making little comments and doing programming against any of the other candidates that attack Romney. What a joke. I wrote them a little note about doing a little more of the We Report, You Decide and keeping their opinions to themselves. I don't need theirs, I've already got enough of my own.
-
In simplest terms.... I do not like, trust or support Romney. It has nothing to do with his faith, but his apparent lack of character. He seems, to me at least, to be another pony that has been groomed by the power brokers. I swear sometimes i can see the strings when he is on stage!!!!!! I do not think that he can beat Obama. And if some how he is elected we will see a continuation of the same policies we have witnessed for the lat 2 decades(erosion of the Constitution and further movement tworads a police state. Just my .02 cents!
-
In simplest terms.... I do not like, trust or support Romney. It has nothing to do with his faith, but his apparent lack of character. He seems, to me at least, to be another pony that has been groomed by the power brokers. I swear sometimes i can see the strings when he is on stage!!!!!! I do not think that he can beat Obama. And if some how he is elected we will see a continuation of the same policies we have witnessed for the lat 2 decades(erosion of the Constitution and further movement tworads a police state. Just my .02 cents!
Exactly my thoughts.
-
Yup my thoughts exactly. With that said I will still vote for him Vs. Barry.
My first vote is for Santorum (Conservative), second Paul (Libratarian) and third Perry (Conservative) at this point. Sorry Sledge however I just can't get behind Newt (GOP Progressive)....I don't know why. Maybe it's his ego BUT they all have a hefty ego...If Newt is the GOP nominee I will vote for him over Barry though.
Bottom-line I will vote for Rin Tin Tin over Barry.
-
Santorum?
Wtf Johnnymac?
-
None of the above. [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
-
Yup my thoughts exactly. With that said I will still vote for him Vs. Barry.
Bottom-line I will vote for Rin Tin Tin over Barry.
I'm in total agreement with those statements. Still I had to cringe the other day when I was reading an Info Wars article that ignored what Romney has been saying in his campaign and compared his legislative accomplishments to Obama's. It dubbed him the White Obama.
Meet the White Obama
http://www.infowars.com/meet-the-white-obama/ (http://www.infowars.com/meet-the-white-obama/)
-
Even if you disagree with Paul, at least he's said the same thing for the last 30+ years.
-
One word NOPE
-
Even if you disagree with Paul, at least he's said the same thing for the last 30+ years.
Fine, but just because he's said it for 30 years doesn't make it all true either. He is a politician, just like the rest of them.
-
Even if you disagree with Paul, at least he's said the same thing for the last 30+ years.
Fine, but just because he's said it for 30 years doesn't make it all true either. He is a politician, just like the rest of them.
Even if it isn't true at least he has kept to one lie for the last 30 years
-
Fact of the matter is though that Paul didn't WANT to be a politician all this time. He started out as a doctor (not a "community organizer") and at one point even left politics for a time till his constituents asked him to come back! Now maybe he is just a smooth talker, or even the anti-christ (I thought they said that was Ob... nvm lol). But right now we have SEEN the evidence of where Barry is taking us and I tend to agree with the calling MITTens Romney the white Obama. Ron Paul or BUST! [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co
-
Even if you disagree with Paul, at least he's said the same thing for the last 30+ years.
Fine, but just because he's said it for 30 years doesn't make it all true either. He is a politician, just like the rest of them.
Even if it isn't true at least he has kept to one lie for the last 30 years
Yeah.... i gota get with RvR and Outofnowhere with this one.... Ill take consistency over General BS. Fuck all, I lay my fate with the Constitution.
-
Yup RS, Santorum. He has been my first choice from the beginning.
If Santorum became the President I feel he will put his heart and soul into turning things around. I also trust him. I can't say I feel the same way with Newt, Mitt or Huntsman.
My next choice is Paul. If he became the President he would kick butt and take names. I also think that Paul has a problem communicating. That is why he sometimes sounds like your crazy uncle. :))
-
My vote is for Paul aswell . I believe in the constitution to the point of dying for it , much like the rest of us. I can't see anyone else that could get this country.back on track. I agree he has a hard time stating things out loud but most True men of genius often have that issue.
Paul calls our country what it truly is " Empire" and he is the only one with the polices and the backbone to turn this Empire back into the free republic that we all need and yurn for. He rattles a lot of cages and that pisses a lot of people off, but think about it. Isn't that what our country needs? how have the last 20 years been? No one has dared to rattle the cages and look how it has ended.
The problem with voting for Paul is he plans ond downsizing the military so I would be out of a job.
-
Yup RS, Santorum. He has been my first choice from the beginning.
If Santorum became the President I feel he will put his heart and soul into turning things around. I also trust him. I can't say I feel the same way with Newt, Mitt or Huntsman.
My next choice is Paul. If he became the President he would kick butt and take names. I also think that Paul has a problem communicating. That is why he sometimes sounds like your crazy uncle. :))
Personally I like that "Granpa Simpson" vibe sometimes. :))
The Simpsons - History with Grandpa Simpson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARXfQzfl9EQ#)
-
I just don't get how you could support a slick haired lobbyist like Santorum.
The guy is as phony as a three dollar bill.
He is by no means a constitutionalist, he's just a big-government loving, special interest funded political machine.
I mean you seem pretty rad JohnnyMac and Santorum is the opposite of that. [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co
-
RS, it's the sweater vests :))
-
JohnyMac, info on Santorum: http://ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Civil_Rights.htm (http://ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Civil_Rights.htm)
He seems very religiously biased (separation of church and state, anyone?), and his voting record shows that he supports the Federal government intervening in the personal lives of individuals regarding their personal choices. I see nowhere in the Constitution that allows that kind of intervention. Also, another huge point, he voted YES to kill a bill that would require more strict requirements to wiretap cell phones. Big government at its finest.
Also, you trust him? Based on what? His voting record shows a religious bias that defies the Constitution. You trust him?
Sledge: Looking for the bad info on Newt, and the flip-flopping articles. Thought I saved them, didn't find them. When I find them, I'll post here. ;)
Ron Paul, of course, has voted 100% in favor of the Constitution for 30 years, which nobody who is a true Constitutionalist is capable of contesting.
-
If I had to vote (gun to head) I'd pick Santorum or Paul. More than likely Santorum, but I guess we'll all know come April 3rd. To be perfectly honest though I could still care less for any of them, even Paul. They rub me the wrong way. I think Santorum could stand a better chance debating Obama and winning. Rregardless they're all still politicians.
P.S. Besides all the damn hippies chanting Ron Paul makes me want to gag. It's like they want to get in line to kiss the guys feet or stroke his balls like some weird freaking cult.
-
If I had to vote (gun to head) I'd pick Santorum or Paul. More than likely Santorum, but I guess we'll all know come April 3rd. To be perfectly honest though I could still care less for any of them, even Paul. They rub me the wrong way. I think Santorum could stand a better chance debating Obama and winning. Rregardless they're all still politicians.
P.S. Besides all the damn hippies chanting Ron Paul makes me want to gag. It's like they want to get in line to kiss the guys feet or stroke his balls like some weird freaking cult.
Look, I respect opinions, but I have to respond to this one. Ron Paul has my unreserved support because his record completely backs his political stance. Over 30+ years, he has voted constitutionally on every issue. He has proven through his actions that he puts his duty to the Constitution and the people first. No other candidate currently espouses a completely Constitutional agenda except Paul, including Santorum. Santorum has only a fraction of the service Paul has had, and even that small amount is not completely Constitutional. They are all politicians, yeah. Should you trust them because of their words? No. Should you trust Ron Paul because of his words? No. You choose the candidate based on their words and actions. Ron Paul's actions for the past three decades match his words. You can have a certain trust in that fact, a proven history of unreserved Constitutional support.
Also, perhaps you did not include all Paul supporters in your "hippy" comment, but you were pretty vague. I think some of them can be a bit creepy, too (in my opinion, every candidate has its share of irrational devotees). However, the vast majority of people I've talked to that support Paul do so because they know his history backs his words, and they agree with his words. This is not irrational behavior. It's good sense. What is bad sense, to me, is rejecting one candidate, who has proven his worth over three decades, in favor of another candidate with a fraction of the same service and whose political career has demonstrated some un-Constitutional aspects.
Do you stand for the Constitution or not? That is the only question that should be at the forefront of all of our minds in this election (or any election, for that matter). Any other candidate is going to send us down the same road Obama is sending us. Perhaps it will be slower, but we'll get there. Ron Paul probably will not run again. There is no other person I've seen who has his record and his knowledge of what our nation needs to recover and return to a liberty-loving society. If we do not elect Paul now, it is very likely that you will need to kiss your freedoms goodbye, or be 100% willing to put your lives on the line defending it. Ron Paul is the last hope, if there is any hope left in this charade, for a turn-around. Everyone else has their own agenda, and if the Constitution gets in their way they don't care if they bypass it. It's very likely now or never, guys. I find it hard to believe that anyone here who is "awake" really believes that someone who is any less than completely pro-Constitutional and who is willing to adhere to it regardless of consequences is the person who can help to heal this nation.
-
IMO Paul can not win against Barry. If he is the Republican candidate I will vote for him happily. Even with my vote he can not beat Barry.
Should we vote for people based on whether they are winable or throw your vote away on principle? That is an interesting question and maybe deserves some debate. Not to pollute this thread I start a new one on this question.
My goal is to get Barry out of office and pick the person most in-line with my values and principle that can get the job done.
Lastly, I will use my wife as an example (Sorry dear): She says over and over again after she hears Paul, "Boy he is creepy." Now should she vote for or against someone who is "creepy." No of course you shouldn't. However there is a segment of the population that will vote that way- Sorry to say (I hope Kindred Spirit isn't reading this) but many, not all, vote their feeling's in the end.
So with that rant over I will restate what I have in past writing's: My 1st vote goes to Santorum and if he backs out my guy will be Paul. But in the end, I will vote for Rin Tin Tin rather then a socialist Barry.
-
IMO Paul can not win against Barry. If he is the Republican candidate I will vote for him happily. Even with my vote he can not beat Barry.
This unfortunately is true. And if Barry gets another 4 years, which is entirely possible regardless of who gets the nomination, I think the country's ability to return to the Constitution is over.
I would look more to Rand Paul as the individual who could manage to do that if we can limit the damage done to the Constitution by the winner of the next election.
-
Its funny how people talk about wanting to make a change and to see things get better but then slide to the "Oh, he can't win and I just want Barry out of office" mantra. It's disgusting really to think that when we have gotten away from where we should be, where we are now, by casting away our principles for what "is more likely to effect the desired outcome". Time and time again we either remain silent or even act AGAINST our principles. This time it's worse because whether we get Barry back in the WH or his globalist replacement doesn't matter, the agenda will not deviate and we will slide further into the abyss. At least standing and voting by your principles you can say "It may have been seemingly insurmountable odds but I did what I believed was right and I stand by that decision." Will you be able to tell your grandchildren that they have the freedom that they do because you followed your principles or will you be explaining that they live under tyranny because you didn't think your man could win? Stop making excuses already because NOW IS NOT THE HOUR FOR COMPROMISE! WE NEED TO STOP TAKING TWO STEPS FORWARD JUST TO GET KNOCKED TEN STEPS BACK! WE NEED TO PUSH FORWARD UNCOMPROMISING UNTIL WE REACH THE GOAL OF LIBERTY. ANYTHING LESS IS SURRENDER TO TYRANNY.
-
Aaaanddd...that's +1 Karma for Outonowhere. [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co
-
Damn guys. See this right here is the problem. Just because someone doesn't vote for Paul doesn't mean they don't support our constitution. I agree with Johnny that Paul doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Fact is Paul is too old for this and if he goes up against Obama, Obama will only condescend his old ass all day and night long.
Aside from the hippies I seriously question why Paul is getting so much support from racist and Muslims. Probably because once again, he so eloquently denies Israel full support while backing Iran to get nuclear "power" for their ownnational sovereignty. All the while both sides hate Israel and all Jews and have openly expressed the desire to kill them all. Yeah, I know, I'm kicking a dead horse, but my point here is there are a number of reasons I don't consider Paul the ideal candidate. He's a good speaker and has a fair idea of what this country needs, but he doesn't get the full picture. Not saying Santorum does either, but I think he could get there and debate Obama right off the stage.
Last thing I'll say is this. I love our Constitution. Many of the provisions outlined still hold true today. However, it is not a perfect document and it was not written by perfect men. In fact many of those men were Free Mason deist scum. Specifically Thomas Jefferson.
"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
Thomas Jefferson
Anyone wanting to see a bit of truth I'd suggest read on here for more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm)
Additionally I suggest people start to realize the nature of this nation. Ignorance is not ommision from the truth.
-
"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
Thomas Jefferson
Slander! Slander! LOL! Next you'll be saying that Andrew Jackson and Grant had drinking problems. Or that Lincoln wasn't anti slavery until he decided it would help him win the war. Or that Franklin was a male whore who spent more time chasing skirts than he did writing Poor Richard's Almanac. LOL!
-
First off I have not said a GD thing about anyone who DOESN'T vote for Paul being unpatriotic. What I HAVE been saying is that out of ALL the candidates, including Santorum, Paul is the only one who will NOT continue in some degree the direction and path that Obama, and even those before him have set us upon.
And last time I checked religion had nothing to do with government... THAT would be called a Theocracy.
Presidents are people and are NOT gods and are imperfect, but to vote for even the softest of tyrant's in the hopes of changing things for the better is to invite the chains of servitude.
I will do as I will, and you as you will.
OH and Lincoln was a dick... lol
-
First off I have not said a GD thing about anyone who DOESN'T vote for Paul being unpatriotic. What I HAVE been saying is that out of ALL the candidates, including Santorum, Paul is the only one who will NOT continue in some degree the direction and path that Obama, and even those before him have set us upon.
And last time I checked religion had nothing to do with government... THAT would be called a Theocracy.
Presidents are people and are NOT gods and are imperfect, but to vote for even the softest of tyrant's in the hopes of changing things for the better is to invite the chains of servitude.
I will do as I will, and you as you will.
OH and Lincoln was a dick... lol
If religion has no place in government than why is our money covered in pagan symbols identified from the time of King Solomon and Ba'al worship, because that money is still being printed and doesn't change the symbols. If it has no place in our government than why did men like this fight so hard to get it out? Why do they institute things like evolution in our education system which have been proven to be false. Yes proven. Or do you believe you're a monkey? The "god" on "in god we trust" is not the Christian, Hebrew, or Islamic God of our fathers. I'm not trying to be combative with you, but don't speak about things you don't fully understand. And I implore you to go back and actually read the article I posted and observe the section on seperation of church and state.
-
GD
Gosh Durn
chains of servitude.
That's pretty eloquent there Mr. Poet. LOL!
OH and Lincoln was a dick... lol
Yes he was. That sucker caused me to lose a really nice house and a lot of acreage in my inheritance. The bastard!
-
Aaaanddd...that's +1 Karma for Outonowhere.
So if I start agreeing with you I can get some +1's?
Ron Paul Is The Man! LOL!
I'm such a whore. LOL!
-
Yep, Sledge if you agree with me you will receive +1 Karma as your fee. ;)
I agree with OONW based on his principles and logic. I severely disagree with WW's portrayal of what this country is. In my opinion, whatever the past may be, the U.S. today is a nation trending more and more towards a secular lifestyle. We may preach religions, but most of us do what the self-admitted secular people (like me) do every day anyway. What the Founding Fathers believed regarding religion is, to me, inconsequential because that is not the issue. The issue is whether you will elect someone who 100% supports the Constitution, a secular document written to serve as the law of this nation, independent of religion. The men who wrote it and who have held office for much of America's history might have been Christian, but that document itself is written for all of us.
I have debated in two different threads the decisions by WW and JMac to support Santorum over Paul, and have asked both if they support Santorum primarily because of his very pro-Christian beliefs. Both times my questions have gone unanswered. This leads me to believe that you do support the Constitution, from the filter of Christianity. This, in my opinion, installs blinders regarding issues concerning Israel, and makes it harder to disagree if legislation is proposed that would further pro-Christian agendas at the cost of non-Christian citizens. Paul is Christian, but he doesn't advocate the same things that Santorum does. Paul is not overly friendly with homosexuals, from what I understand, but he does acknowledge their right under the Constitution to act as individuals. I cannot say that I "trust" Santorum to do the same. There are other issues, but that is the foremost in my mind. Paul is the only one who has obeyed the Constitution throughout his career, which is a substantial number of years as a Congressman. That fact alone should qualify him and him alone as the suitable candidate for the presidency.
I don't know about OONW (I suspect he feels the same way I do), but I believe that NOW is the time to vote on principle. Sledge and others want to play the waiting game, but don't admit that it is the same game their fathers and grandfathers played before them. Did it do any good? No. It won't do any good now. You're hoping for change from an avenue that will never present said change, just like many of the Obamanites did. If Santorum is elected, after his term you'll still be sitting there saying, "Well, we can try again...I know he did some unconstitutional things, but I think more people woke up and will take charge." You're not taking into account that the longer we wait, the longer the Federal government has to further its agenda: gradually monitoring/taking our methods of communication, threatening/eliminating our means of self-defense, and further eroding what little quality education we can actually provide to the next generation. This brings my next point to light: what grand "awakening" can you expect when such a huge portion of the population comes from federal and state-controlled school systems, which encourage obedience over questioning authority, submission to the contest for freedom? Your hopes are false. The awakening we have now is the only one you can count on to carry on the fight for freedom. For all you know, this could be the largest window of opportunity you have. You might blow it all for a hope of change.
-
So Rah, Taking Ron Paul out of the picture. Who do you vote for? Or do you vote at all? I'm sorry. I know you don't want to hear this. Voting for Dr. Paul and not voting at all are equal. It means having no effect on who the next President will be.
Although, I agree with Paul's domestic agenda, I prefer to have an effect. To me, not voting or wasting a vote by voting for someone who will not win is the same as what you termed "kicking the can down the road". It has the same effect if you see what I mean.
All that said, it is your privilege to cast your vote any way you see fit, or not at all.
-
No, what I'm saying is that you throw everything you are behind Paul, and if he doesn't win then you get what's coming. I'm saying that if people haven't woken up enough by now to see that Paul is the only true Constitutionalist there, there likely won't be a better chance to elect him. Which means, kicking the can down the road won't do any good because the chance of restoring liberty becomes more and more slim. If the American populace is too ignorant to see what the Obama administration wants to do to this nation, then perhaps a taste of it is what they need to have. More unemployment, more law enforcement crackdowns on peaceful protestors, more unconstitutional acts to fuel the fire of "rage against the machine" ( :P ) that is necessary for people to awaken and look for other options. I'm saying that, in my opinion, you only ever had two realistic choices: you either vote for the Constitutionalist and win, or you go down fighting in the elections and help stir the flames of discontent as the Obama administration makes its rounds yet again. The American Revolution was largely successful not because they were all just such good patriots - uh-uh. The Revolutionary movement gained followers because people like Samuel Adams helped get their neighbors pissed off enough that they were ready not only to die, but to kill to seize their liberties.
I don't want a violent revolution. Truly. It scares the shit out of me, and I'm not sure what I'd be able to do. I desperately want a political solution. However, I know that the political "solutions" have not helped us at all for longer than you have been alive, Sledge." I also realize that there are a huge number of true patriots (if not outwardly, at least in their hearts ready for an awakening), especially considering the Vietnam, Gulf War and Afghanistan/Iraq vets, that have the training and motivation to teach and help defend those of us with the heart, but lacking the skills. We have the manpower right now to truly stand up and say, "We will not back down in the light of the government's unconstitutional actions against the American people, and we will resist attempts to force our submission. Your move." Wait another two or three administrations, and the Vietnam vets will be gone, the Gulf War vets will be old, liberty's teeth may very well have become even more dull and our chance for large, justified, constitutional resistance may have been lost. My fear is that you advocate what the German Jews advocated, which was to accept certain evils in the hopes that an opportunity within the system would arrive and the bad times would pass. They were dead wrong.
-
Thank you Rah, I honestly just grew tired of posting yesterday. lol
I am well aware of ALL the different symbolism and wording that is within the documents and what-not of our country from the very beginning. Obviously being a free country each individual is able to view/practice religion as they see fit, which in turn has some general degree on their words and actions. This is where the line is drawn.
(US) Republic (as meant) - "GOD" or "CREATOR" is a general term that can be embraced by all regardless of religion. Some acknowledge the divines hand on our country being formed and call for praise, thanks and blessings on both the "creator" and our country. We DO NOT (or/and should not) look to the bible or ANY other religious text for law or governing. That is what the constitution and bill of rights are for. Hence why we in OK overwhelmingly voted to NOT allow our court system to use Sharia or any other international law, only OUR US and OK law.
Theocracy is where the priest (by whatever name) and the president are one and the same. The constitutions and other governing laws and documents read like pages and text out of religious texts.
Also about our money, I would be satisfied with having the friggin Mr. MoneyBags himself on there cause its worth about the same as whats in a box of Monopoly when you get down to it...