1/2 of the dream ticket for Repubs may have been found

[Collier11]

General Petraeus, me likey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7549797/David-Petraeus-for-President-Run-General-run.html


David Petraeus for President: Run General, run


With many voters yearning for an outsider, and military officers looked up to, General David Petraeus could be a powerful presidential candidate and a potentially accomplished President.

In this toxic climate, perhaps the only public institution that has increased in prestige in recent years is the American military. Its officers are looked upon, as General George Patton once noted, as "the modern representatives of the demi-gods and heroes of antiquity".

Where better to look for Obama's successor, therefore, than in the uniformed ranks? Not since 1952, when a certain Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War, was elected President, have the chances of a military man winning the White House been more propitious.

Within those ranks, no one stands out like General David Petraeus, head of United States Central Command, leader of 230,000 troops and commander of United States forces in two wars. Having masterminded the Iraq surge, the stunning military gambit that seized victory from the jaws of defeat, he is now directing an equally daunting undertaking in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, 57, has survived the collapse of his parachute 60 feet above the ground. After he was shot in the chest during a training exercise and endured five hours surgery, the then battalion commander refused to lie in hospital recuperating. Demanding that the tubes be removed from his arm, he declared: "I am not the norm."

A Princeton PhD, he has revolutionised the way America fights its wars, inculcating the doctrine of counter-insurgency in a new generation of officers who have finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest. At West Point he qualified for medical school just to prove he could, never bothering to apply.

The problem is that Petraeus appears to have no desire to be commander-in-chief. His denials of any political ambition have come close to the famous statement by General William Sherman. The former American Civil War commander, rejecting the possibility of running for president in 1884 by stating: "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

Yet speculation about "Petraeus in 2012" persists. The White House is wary of him just as President Bill Clinton was wary of General Colin Powell in 1995. Rumours that he wants to run have even reached Downing Street.

At a recent appearance in New Hampshire - which happens to be the state in which the first presidential primary will be held in January 2012 - Petraeus was emphatic.

"I thought I'd said 'no' about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no," he insisted when asked if he was destined for politics. "I've tried quoting a country song 'What part of 'no' don't you understand?' but I really do mean that...I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you." Almost Shermanesque.

Some note, however, when the future President Barack Obama was asked in February 2007 if he would serve his full six-year term in the Senate (due to expire in 2010), he responded: "If you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things." When asked directly if he would run for the White House in 2008, he said flatly: "I will not."

There's little reason to doubt the sincerity of Petraeus's denials. He recently confided that he has remained so steadfastly apolitical since he became a major-general that he has not voted. And he has maintained a much lower profile since the Bush administration, when he became closely identified with the former President.

This month, in an interview for a lengthy and laudatory profile in Vanity Fair, he evens praises Obama as being "everything that everyone says he is... exceedingly bright, very focused - and very competitive, by the way".

Petraeus, wire-thin and an accomplished runner, is known for being one of the most competitive men on the planet and he lacks nothing in the self-assurance department. No one has ever accused him of being deficient in his sense of patriotism.

Whether as an independent or as Republican, he could be a powerful presidential candidate and a potentially accomplished President. He may not want to run but if the clamour to draft him grows he might just find the call of duty - not to mention the contest of a lifetime - difficult to resist.

[Collier11]

This is the 1st person ive heard mentioned that excited me at all

[yankee]

well, if he does run...he'd be at least showing some good political traits by going back on his word.

[GottaHavePride]

Heh. If the Republicans can talk him into running, he'd make a heck of a candidate.

[JohnnyMack]

Homey might physically masturbate himself into a coma if this happened.

[Collier11]

then please let it happen, that would be awesome...not cus I dont like Homey but just cus I want to find out that someone has masturbated themselves into a coma

[GKeeper316]

ill wait till i see his position on the issues, but i still hold that ron paul is the best republican politician in america, and still dont get why a slight lack of charisma on his part makes him completely unelectable... probably because the people in his party are so stupid they actually thought sarah palin on a presidential ticket was a good idea.

[Collier11]

especially when most people I listened to said that if Mccain had chosen the tex chick he woulda had a great shot at winning

[GKeeper316]

kay bailey hutchinson?

[Collier11]

yep, may not have won, who knows but alot of pundits thought she gave him the best shot

[GKeeper316]

meh... shes too right for me.

but definately would have made a better running mate than an over the hill beauty pagent contestant who has won every political office thus far like it was a student council election in high school... popularity contest.

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

Sure worked out well for Wesley Clark in 2004....:rolleyes:

[Collier11]

definitely, I fell for teh Palin charm at the beginning and found myself embarrassed by her as it went on

[GKeeper316]

Sure worked out well for Wesley Clark in 2004....:rolleyes:

dems couldnt buy a candidate in 04... kinda like the reps in 08.

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

dems couldnt buy a candidate in 04... kinda like the reps in 08.

Leatherface and Captain Adultery weren't quality candidates? ;)

[delhalew]

ill wait till i see his position on the issues, but i still hold that ron paul is the best republican politician in america, and still dont get why a slight lack of charisma on his part makes him completely unelectable... probably because the people in his party are so stupid they actually thought sarah palin on a presidential ticket was a good idea.

DeceptiCON's in the (R) party keep Paul from being the prominent candidate in their party. Paul is the only 100% conservative in Congress. Neocons who care more about furthering the military-industrial complex than constitutional conservatism torpedo Paul's image even within the (R) party.

This is why Gub'ment grows even under (R) administrations.

[BillyBall]

In this toxic climate, perhaps the only public institution that has increased in prestige in recent years is the American military.

Worked out well for Wesley Clark.

[Scott D]

All of you should be waiting for Rushy clone to tell you why this idea won't fly. ;)

[Chuck Bao]

There was an article about a month ago when he made the trip home to New Hampshire that he is a registered republican but he admires the policies of President Obama and could potentially switch over and be Obama's second term running mate and then run for president in 2016. I like that scenario.

[Scott D]

I said Rushy clone to say why it wouldn't fly...not Chucky Bao.

[Chuck Bao]

I said Rushy clone to say why it wouldn't fly...not Chucky Bao.

Oops! Sorry.

[PDXsooner]

Petraeus is a stallion, I read his book several years back. Don't think I want him as my Pres, unless he's willing to run on something other that the Republican ticket.

[the_ouskull]

This is the 1st person ive heard mentioned that excited me at all

Well, if you meant "the 1st person not named Ron Paul," then I agree with you, sir.

the_ouskull

[NormanPride]

Ron's too much of a loon to be mainstream. I like his ideas, and he seems to be the only one really thinking, but I can't get excited about a guy that doesn't have a realistic shot.

[Scott D]

and this is why politics continues to fail NP.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

VOTE BILLY JOE KLEGG

[OklahomaTuba]

Maybe the donks will call him a traitor again???

[delhalew]

Paul was the only conservative on the stage in 08 during primary debates. Fox did not invite Paul to the debate they hosted.
When republicans are scared of one of their own, you know that man is on to something.

[Okla-homey]

Worked out well for Wesley Clark.

For the record, Wesley Clark was fired from his EUCOM gig. As one might expect, he doesn't talk much about that. But those of us who were serving at the time remain well aware.

DP OTOH, is the real deal. And while I wouldn't whack myself into a coma, I sure would support a Petreaus candidacy with my time and money.

And that is not a manifestation of the "Anyone But Obama (ABO)" mentality, although that sentiment would garner many votes. I fear however, the GOP will trot out the most senior Senator who hasn't already lost in a presidential bid as that seems to be more or less the rule nowadays when the GOP isn't running an incumbent Pres for re-election.

[landrun]

ill wait till i see his position on the issues, but i still hold that ron paul is the best republican politician in america, and still dont get why a slight lack of charisma on his part makes him completely unelectable... probably because the people in his party are so stupid they actually thought sarah palin on a presidential ticket was a good idea.

Where does Paul stand on social the issues, abortion and gay "marriage"?
I've heard him a few times and I don't think I've ever heard him say something I disagree with. It makes me wonder why he wasn't more of a contender for the nomination last year. I got to think it is his position on the wars we're fighting (which I agree with more and more each day)

[JohnnyMack]

Where does Paul stand on social the issues, abortion and gay "marriage"?

Who gives a ****? Worrying about divisive, wedge issues like that doesn't help anyone get anything accomplished. They're just gigantic red herrings as far as I'm concerned.

[delhalew]

Where does Paul stand on social the issues, abortion and gay "marriage"?
I've heard him a few times and I don't think I've ever heard him say something I disagree with. It makes me wonder why he wasn't more of a contender for the nomination last year. I got to think it is his position on the wars we're fighting (which I agree with more and more each day)

He is pretty hands off socially, which is a refreshing change.
It is absolutly his opposition to the growth of our gub'ment around the world, and the military industrial complex that keeps big gub'ment republicans trying their best to discredit him.
For any conservative, a simple cost-benefit analysis should lead you to Paul's stance. Nevermind principles.

[GKeeper316]

Where does Paul stand on social the issues, abortion and gay "marriage"?
I've heard him a few times and I don't think I've ever heard him say something I disagree with. It makes me wonder why he wasn't more of a contender for the nomination last year. I got to think it is his position on the wars we're fighting (which I agree with more and more each day)

http://ronpaul.org/

[SCOUT]

Petraeus is a stallion, I read his book several years back. Don't think I want him as my Pres, unless he's willing to run on something other that the Republican ticket.

So you would want him if he had a D by his name but not if he had an R. So the party is what matters, not the individual?

[OklahomaTuba]

It is absolutly his opposition to the growth of our gub'ment around the world, and the military industrial complex that keeps big gub'ment republicans trying their best to discredit him.

That and he's a wacko who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but mostly cause he's a wacko.

[GKeeper316]

That and he's a wacko who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but mostly cause he's a wacko.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

scroll to about 39:30

[SoonerProphet]

That and he's a wacko who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but mostly cause he's a wacko.

Post me one link where Dr. Paul says such. Not some op/ed piece or pull any other lame *** stunt as you are want to do when your arguments are proven out to be falso.

[Boarder]

That and he's a wacko who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but mostly cause he's a wacko.
Kill me. I agree with Tuba on this. I like a lot of Paul's ideas but the fact he thinks 9/11 was an inside job shows a lack of grasp on reality.

[GKeeper316]

Kill me. I agree with Tuba on this. I like a lot of Paul's ideas but the fact he thinks 9/11 was an inside job shows a lack of grasp on reality.

how so?

eyewitnesses in the wtc say there were explosions in the sub-basements prior to the plane impact.

there was no airplane debrit or wreckage at the pentagon.

the structural pillars for towers 1 and 2 both were cut at an angle (like demolitionists do when the implode buildings)

neither jet fuel, nor anything else that was inside the towers, burns hot enough to melt steel, yet there is clearly molten metal in pictures and video of the site.

numerous foreign intelligence services warned of impending attacks and our govt ignored them, for whatever reason.

these arent crackpot theories being brought up by conspiracy nutjobs. these are eyewitnesses (police and firefighters of nyc, wtc security and maint.) college professors, politicians, etc raising valid questions that have yet to be answered by either the 9/11 commission or any other investigating agency. and since most of the records are sealed for "national security" no independent agency or the american people, will ever know the whole truth of the matter.

[OklahomaTuba]

Post me one link where Dr. Paul says such.This should help. He seems to go back and forth about it, but the truthers seem to claim him as one of their own, like that lady who was running for Gov in Texas (Medina I think)

http://waronyou.com/topics/ron-paul-on-911-conspiracies-in-chronological-order/

Then there is crap like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY&feature=player_embedded

Dude's a fcuking nut either way.

[OklahomaTuba]

these arent crackpot theories being brought up by conspiracy nutjobs.

Yes they are.

[C&CDean]

how so?

eyewitnesses in the wtc say there were explosions in the sub-basements prior to the plane impact.

there was no airplane debrit or wreckage at the pentagon.

the structural pillars for towers 1 and 2 both were cut at an angle (like demolitionists do when the implode buildings)

neither jet fuel, nor anything else that was inside the towers, burns hot enough to melt steel, yet there is clearly molten metal in pictures and video of the site.

numerous foreign intelligence services warned of impending attacks and our govt ignored them, for whatever reason.

these arent crackpot theories being brought up by conspiracy nutjobs. these are eyewitnesses (police and firefighters of nyc, wtc security and maint.) college professors, politicians, etc raising valid questions that have yet to be answered by either the 9/11 commission or any other investigating agency. and since most of the records are sealed for "national security" no independent agency or the american people, will ever know the whole truth of the matter.

I always thought you were a little looney, but this right here proves you're not. You're downright ****ing insane and/or on serious mind-altering chemicals. Next you're gonna tell me we never set foot on the moon, that the Challenger blew up because Christa Mcauliffe farted, and that Timothy McVeigh wasn't even in Oklahoma the day the Murrah building blew up.

[Collier11]

Oh geez GK

[GKeeper316]

I always thought you were a little looney, but this right here proves you're not. You're downright ****ing insane and/or on serious mind-altering chemicals. Next you're gonna tell me we never set foot on the moon, that the Challenger blew up because Christa Mcauliffe farted, and that Timothy McVeigh wasn't even in Oklahoma the day the Murrah building blew up.

no im not insane.

we did land on the moon, and i hope we go back soon.

the challenger blew up because of lazy maintenance on nasa's part and we have video of mcveigh at the murrah building 20 minutes prior to when it blew up... but theres more to that story. like why does the cia have files on a domestic incident when its clearly not their jurisdiction (the cia is expressly forbidden to run ops or investigate anything within the borders of the united states) and why do they refuse to release them?

dont insult me. im smarter than you.

[PDXsooner]

So you would want him if he had a D by his name but not if he had an R. So the party is what matters, not the individual?

Absolutely the party matters. Unfortunately so. The party matters in that the party drives the agenda and basically ruins every good candidate. Make no mistake, the Democrats are just as bad. I loved McCain until he started changing his positions and pandering to the Republican mainstream.

If Petraeus ran as an Independent I would be much more likely to vote for him. It would depend. I generally vote Democratic over Republican because my ideology lines up more with the party, but I'm under no illusion that the party isn't a corrupted jumble of buffalo ****.

[soonerscuba]

I find that if you belive that Obama was born in Kenya, you're lazy and intellectually so immature you can't accept the fact that a man with a different background than what is typically elected could be president, you have to rationalize why it shouldn't be. If you believe 9/11 is an inside job, you can't even rationalize, you're just a kook. Seriously, they couldn't stop the investigation into Valerie Plame, but they can rig two of the biggest and most populated buildings in America in plain sight while also keeping the moral ramifications out of the eyes of whistle-blowers? Right.

[C&CDean]

no im not insane.

we did land on the moon, and i hope we go back soon.

the challenger blew up because of lazy maintenance on nasa's part and we have video of mcveigh at the murrah building 20 minutes prior to when it blew up... but theres more to that story. like why does the cia have files on a domestic incident when its clearly not their jurisdiction (the cia is expressly forbidden to run ops or investigate anything within the borders of the united states) and why do they refuse to release them?

dont insult me. im smarter than you.

If you were smarter than me you'd be able to type like a ****ing adult instead of a text-messaging child.

If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you're a ****ing moron, and absolutely not smarter than me.

Either way, you lose.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What Dean said.

By the way, you don't have to melt steel to collapse a building when it expands nearly a foot at 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. I've witnessed that lil' scientific marvel firsthand. And have seen how a flying beam will literally shear itself off the mounts just by this expansion alone.

Go home, "truth"er.

[Collier11]

these conspiracy theories have all be debunked, every last one of them

[Boarder]

these arent crackpot theories being brought up by conspiracy nutjobs.

Fright-wingers

If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job done by the government, you're a dummy and frankly, there's not much hope for you. There's just not a nicer way to put it.

[OklahomaTuba]

Fright-wingers? Wasn't there a pole a couple of years back showing like 35% of democrats believed Bushilter and Darth Vader secretly did it?

Kinda like when they blew up the levees in New Orleans to kill brown people with the assistance of the evil greedy Halliburton's corporate earth destroying hurricane machine??

[Scott D]

You're all ****ing nuts. I know the true answers but I can't share them because I'm sworn to secrecy.

[GKeeper316]

so basically you're all saying that there's no way in hell our government had anything at all to do with 9/11... completely outside the realm of possibility.

got it.

and the new health insurance law is socialism, right?

i laugh at how duplicitous you all are. damn obama and his damn helping people and damn big gubment...

but that same big gubment dont never lie to me about stuff..

it must be sad to accept aythority as truth instead of truth as authority.

[Collier11]

there is always a possibility that there was some crazy thing happening with most horrible actions that take place, I think the point is that all of these myths, conspiracy theories, facts about the steel, etc...have all been debunked. The US govt had zero to do with 9/11

[PDXsooner]

so basically you're all saying that there's no way in hell our government had anything at all to do with 9/11... completely outside the realm of possibility.

got it.

and the new health insurance law is socialism, right?

i laugh at how duplicitous you all are. damn obama and his damn helping people and damn big gubment...

but that same big gubment dont never lie to me about stuff..

it must be sad to accept aythority as truth instead of truth as authority.

I'm not one of those people that's going to call you a nut-job and insult you just because your theory throws me out of my comfort zone or shakes my paradigm...but with a conspiracy that big, there would have been a more substantial leak by now. It just doesn't seem plausible. Too many working parts involved.

[Collier11]

The CIAs secret prisons were discovered, you really think something of this magnitude and something so out in the open wouldnt have been discovered

[Scott D]

Truthfully if someone wants to say that there was someone in the government who knew that it was a very strong possibility, I can accept that. If you want to say the intelligence was there with damn near every detail of the attacks, I can accept that. If you want to say that someone along the chain screwed the pooch by not getting the information needed to those who needed it most, I can accept that.

As far as conspiracies go, if someone strongly believes that the government was behind the attacks, then they're probably the same people that believe that FDR knew months in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen to draw the US into WW2, that the government itself was behind the assassination of JFK because he had grown too dangerous by becoming president, that the Union government was behind the assassination of Abe Lincoln...I could go on and on.

[C&CDean]

I'm not one of those people that's going to call you a nut-job and insult you just because your theory throws me out of my comfort zone or shakes my paradigm...but with a conspiracy that big, there would have been a more substantial leak by now. It just doesn't seem plausible. Too many working parts involved.

You're not gonna insult him because you're both left-wing loonies. However, I ain't buying the "out of my comfort zone or shakes my paradigm" horse**** at all. It has nothing to do with any of that. It has everything to do with people researching the whole 9/11 deal from top to bottom and finding absolutely ZERO evidence of it being an "inside job."

Your buddy is convinced Bush and Cheney and Rummy and the whole gang had Condy go plant some bombs in the basement, blah blah blah and for believing that, he is bat**** crazy.

Now that we've settled that, what do you think about the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor? Did FDR know about it and let it happen to get us into WWII?

[C&CDean]

Galdamn it Scott! You're just too quick for me.

[GKeeper316]

ok first off i never said i believed any of it, but that the questions i had seen raised were valid and should be adressed.

unlike dean im a logical individual and cant rule something out of the realm of possiblity just because it offends me.

and i like pissing off dean. cuz its funny.

[Scott D]

Galdamn it Scott! You're just too quick for me.

That's because I'm smarter than whitey. :)

[C&CDean]

pfffft. You ain't capable of pissing me off.

If I card you with a "pissing off Dean" card it's because it's a menu option for the admins. If you really pissed me off you'd know about it.

As for the whole "logical individual" comment I just say "meh." But I will ask you something: is it logical to believe in UFOs? Ghosts? Evolution? Creation? Just curious.

[C&CDean]

That's because I'm smarter than whitey. :)

That's Sir Whitey to you holmes.

[PDXsooner]

You're not gonna insult him because you're both left-wing loonies.

By "left-wing loonies" what you actually mean is "not-right-wing loonie".

[JohnnyMack]

1. Churchill used the Lusitania as bait.

2. The United States provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor

3. The CIA was aware that some of the 09/11 terrorists were in the US before the attack took place and both the Clinton and Bush administrations did **** poor jobs of taking Al Qaeda seriously.

[OklahomaTuba]

What I wonder is who are the lunatic lefties like PDX are going to blame when Guam tips over and capsizes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w) into the pacific because of our illegal occupation there???

[Scott D]

That's Sir Whitey to you holmes.

Until I see the muh****in' Queen of muh****in' England knight you, you're just whitey to me.

[Scott D]

What I wonder is who are the lunatic lefties like PDX are going to blame when Guam tips over and capsizes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w) into the pacific because of our illegal occupation there???

personally I'm going to blame the fact that you haven't once gone to the strip club across the street from your office as to why Guam will tip over.

[OklahomaTuba]

personally I'm going to blame the fact that you haven't once gone to the strip club across the street from your office as to why Guam will tip over.Dude that was so 6 years ago. ;)

[Scott D]

hey, it's just as valid a reason to place blame as anything else ;)

[Boarder]

Fright-wingers? Wasn't there a pole a couple of years back showing like 35% of democrats believed Bushilter and Darth Vader secretly did it?

Kinda like when they blew up the levees in New Orleans to kill brown people with the assistance of the evil greedy Halliburton's corporate earth destroying hurricane machine??

Fright-wingers does not entail political leaning of left or right. It implies that people who are trying to frighten the public with crazy conspiracy crap. They could be D or R, it doesn't matter.



so basically you're all saying that there's no way in hell our government had anything at all to do with 9/11... completely outside the realm of possibility.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. I also say that to think they did is wacko. The scope of containing such a conspiracy is mind-boggling (among other problems).


and the new health insurance law is socialism, right?
Well, that's not really in the same realm of subject, but as long as you asked...nope.




but that same big gubment dont never lie to me about stuff..

it must be sad to accept aythority as truth instead of truth as authority.

Government lying about an agenda to, for example, give a kickback to a Senator for a particular vote is in no way in comparison to a government lying about blowing up two of the largest buildings in NYC, attributing it to terrorists, and causing a war to further priofits of an oil company.

[delhalew]

This should help. He seems to go back and forth about it, but the truthers seem to claim him as one of their own, like that lady who was running for Gov in Texas (Medina I think)

http://waronyou.com/topics/ron-paul-on-911-conspiracies-in-chronological-order/

Then there is crap like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY&feature=player_embedded

Dude's a fcuking nut either way.

You are misled. Glenn Beck sandbagged Medina. He caught her off guard and since nobody follows up on anything, instead taking their marching orders and moving on, few know that was not at all what she meant.
The truthers like Paul because he wants to abolish the FED, the cornerstone of another conspiracy nutters wet dream...the New World Order. LOL. Full disclosure: I find that one the easiest to buy of all the conspiracy theories.

[Leroy Lizard]

Fright-wingers does not entail political leaning of left or right. It implies that people who are trying to frighten the public with crazy conspiracy crap. They could be D or R, it doesn't matter.

Don't be so naive. The fact that "fright" rhymes with "right" should tell you that the term is not neutral.

[GKeeper316]

You are misled. Glenn Beck sandbagged Medina. He caught her off guard and since nobody follows up on anything, instead taking their marching orders and moving on, few know that was not at all what she meant.
The truthers like Paul because he wants to abolish the FED, the cornerstone of another conspiracy nutters wet dream...the New World Order. LOL. Full disclosure: I find that one the easiest to buy of all the conspiracy theories.

when andrew jackson ran for president his only platform issue was abolishing the national bank, which he did. and there was no inflation in america until the establishment of the federal reserve in 1916 (which is modeled after german and swiss national banking systems). the federal reserve is designed to keep people in debt.

if you've never read it, i highly recommend reading modern money mechanics. its a federal publication that spells out how money is created in america... did you know that every time a bank loans you money, they enter into a contract illegally?

[PDXsooner]

I think it's funny that I'm considered left-wing looney on here. I'm considered a moderate by most standards, moderate conservative to some. In Oklahoma I'd definitely be considered a liberal. It's interesting how much that can vary.

[Collier11]

a moderate in Portland Oregon is a left wing looney most places, a left wing looney in Oregon is a terrorist :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

I pronounce it "stoner"

[delhalew]

I think it's funny that I'm considered left-wing looney on here. I'm considered a moderate by most standards, moderate conservative to some. In Oklahoma I'd definitely be considered a liberal. It's interesting how much that can vary.

This we have in common. You can't understand why you are looked upon as a liberal for defending policies that value the collective over the individual. While I am mystified at being considered a right wing nutter for my beliefs that the Constitution is not a blank slate on which activist's desire of the day can be scribbled via the judiciary, as well as a belief that our debt will destroy us.
In the end these labels are meaningless. What's important is coming to a consensus on what it will take for this nation to survive. For my part, wanting a gub'ment willing to wipe my *** for me is the wrong direction.

[SicEmBaylor]

I weep for the Republic.

[C&CDean]

I think it's funny that I'm considered left-wing looney on here. I'm considered a moderate by most standards, moderate conservative to some. In Oklahoma I'd definitely be considered a liberal. It's interesting how much that can vary.

In Oklahoma I'm a moderate conservative. In Portland, I'm somewhere between Adolph Hitler and Atilla the Hun. Of course I look at those folks doing the judging up in Portland, and I have to go "consider the source." Moonbats, zanies, hippies, and pierced and tatted teenagers with a head full of drugs and nary a clue about life. I'm good with being a nazi to those people.

[C&CDean]

I weep for the Republic.

I could see this happening.

[delhalew]

when andrew jackson ran for president his only platform issue was abolishing the national bank, which he did. and there was no inflation in america until the establishment of the federal reserve in 1916 (which is modeled after german and swiss national banking systems). the federal reserve is designed to keep people in debt.

if you've never read it, i highly recommend reading modern money mechanics. its a federal publication that spells out how money is created in america... did you know that every time a bank loans you money, they enter into a contract illegally?

I can't miss a chance to agree with your crazy ***.
Your statements above range from valid to true.
Good post.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The truthers like Paul because he wants to abolish the FED, the cornerstone of another conspiracy nutters wet dream...the New World Order. LOL. Full disclosure: I find that one the easiest to buy of all the conspiracy theories.

I don't know if the Fed is a conspiracy tool to control the masses, but I do know the politicians are controlled by Wall Street. The evidence for that is pretty easy to find. All you have to do is follow the money.

[PDXsooner]

Moonbats, zanies, hippies, and pierced and tatted teenagers with a head full of drugs and nary a clue about life. .

HEY! Those are my friends!

[Okla-homey]

how so?

there was no airplane debrit or wreckage at the pentagon.



You sir, are an idiot.

There is actual, documented, no-foolin' security camera film from the Pentagon helipad fire station that shows the airliner impact.

Additionally, how in the name of all that's holy do you explain the ensuing fire? Do you actually think the gubmint, even if it were so disposed, could have secreted thousands of gallons of flammable liquid in the Pentagon hallways and no one would have noticed? Have you ever been in the Pentagon?

See, without accellerants, as supplied from that jet's full fuel tanks, reinforced concrete, granite and steel do not burn. Moreover, the Pentagon was built during WWII. As a result, it was built to take a certain amount of punishment from aerial bombs with out torching off. Only a direct hit from a passenger jet with fuel tanks full thousands of gallons of kerosene (which is what jet fuel is) impacting at maximum speed could have wrought that sort of destruction and firey aftermath.

Finally, you are clearly too stupid to use the flippin' "shift key," therefore your opinions are completely irrelevant.

[tommieharris91]

when andrew jackson ran for president his only platform issue was abolishing the national bank, which he did. and there was no inflation in america until the establishment of the federal reserve in 1916 (which is modeled after german and swiss national banking systems). the federal reserve is designed to keep people in debt.

if you've never read it, i highly recommend reading modern money mechanics. its a federal publication that spells out how money is created in america... did you know that every time a bank loans you money, they enter into a contract illegally?

This post, outside of the Andrew Jackson thing, is as false as a sorority girl's ID.

Find me where this says all banks loan money illegally. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And with that, Homey wins.

[GKeeper316]

You sir, are an idiot.

There is actual, documented, no-foolin' security camera film from the Pentagon helipad fire station that shows the airliner impact.

Additionally, how in the name of all that's holy do you explain the ensuing fire? Do you actually think the gubmint, even if it were so disposed, could have secreted thousands of gallons of flammable liquid in the Pentagon hallways and no one would have noticed? Have you ever been in the Pentagon?

See, without accellerants, as supplied from that jet's full fuel tanks, reinforced concrete, granite and steel do not burn. Moreover, the Pentagon was built during WWII. As a result, it was built to take a certain amount of punishment from aerial bombs with out torching off. Only a direct hit from a passenger jet with fuel tanks full thousands of gallons of kerosene (which is what jet fuel is) impacting at maximum speed could have wrought that sort of destruction and firey aftermath.

Finally, you are clearly too stupid to use the flippin' "shift key," therefore your opinions are completely irrelevant.


here is the only video of the pentagon from 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

nice explosion... no plane.

[GKeeper316]

This post, outside of the Andrew Jackson thing, is as false as a sorority girl's ID.

Find me where this says all banks loan money illegally. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf)

google jerome daly. he proved, in an american court of law, that all banks illegally enter into contracts without consideration.

[GKeeper316]

And with that, Homey wins.

nope.

[tommieharris91]

google jerome daly. he proved, in an american court of law, that all banks illegally enter into contracts without consideration.

Justice of the Peace =/= court of law. That's even why the case won its appeal.

Since then, any court proceeding based on this argument has been "...repeatedly dismissed."

Want me to lampoon the rest of that post that is as fictitious as The Lord of the Rings?

[GKeeper316]

Justice of the Peace =/= court of law. That's even why the case won its appeal.

Since then, any court proceeding based on this argument has been "...repeatedly dismissed."

Want me to lampoon the rest of that post that is as fictitious as The Lord of the Rings?

yes it was dismissed, because it was a justice of the peace rendering the decision but made no mention of the case's merits.

and just because the courts wont hear it, doesnt make it any less true.

every time a bank loans money, they do so illegally and without consideration. this is the way the fractional reserve banking system works, with debt and default built in, and the constitution does not give the fed any legal authority to do so.

[Collier11]

the courts wont hear it cus it isnt worth their time

[tommieharris91]

yes it was dismissed, because it was a justice of the peace rendering the decision but made no mention of the case's merits.
The courts won't hear such lawsuits because they are as frivolous as suing a guy over a wrongful death in Oklahoma for shooting your brother who happened to be inside someone else's house without their consent. You can't get out of debt after the fact by telling someone (not just a creditor) that "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is suddenly ineffective, illegal, and insufficient consideration for a contract.


and just because the courts wont hear it, doesnt make it any less true.
It doesn't make it any less false OR illegal. After all, a jury has to find such a contract illegal for your argument to have any basis. (Once again, Justice of the Peace =/= court of law in the US.)


every time a bank loans money, they do so illegally and without consideration. this is the way the fractional reserve banking system works, with debt and default built in, and the constitution does not give the fed any legal authority to do so.
Come back and tell me how fractional reserve banking actually works. Trust me, the system doesn't work too well with default.

While you're at it, take a look at Art. 1, Sec. 8 & 10. Ohh and you might want to take a look at when the Fed was established again. You might also want to check inflation/deflation rates before the Fed, too.

Ohh and read this, too. Specifically pgs 7-9. (https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0574-18)

[GKeeper316]

ok sorry 1913 was when the fed was established.

here just watch this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#

[GKeeper316]

the credit river case was never overturned.

http://educationcenter2000.com/legal/credit_river_decision.htm

wiki was wrong. thats what we get when just anybody can edit it, i guess.

[tommieharris91]

the credit river case was never overturned.

http://educationcenter2000.com/legal/credit_river_decision.htm

wiki was wrong. thats what we get when just anybody can edit it, i guess.

Yes it was. (http://http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html)

[tommieharris91]

ok sorry 1913 was when the fed was established.

here just watch this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#

It's Zeitgeist. It was created to show people how gullible they are. There's more truth to Harry Potter than any Zeitgeist movie.

[GKeeper316]

about credit river... the reason it was nullified was because the justice exceeded his authority due to the value of the claim and had nothing to do with the validity of the claim itself.

if you think that a bank not having the money to loan you for your house in the first place is a lack of consideration (which technically it is) then all bank loans would then be null and void resulting in a complete collapse of the world economy, since this is how we all do it now.

i just think that, even though it was a justice of the peace presiding, it was still a jury verdict, and that the arguement is valid, even though it isnt at all practical, and the resulting chaos it would create if any court actually allowed the arguement to be heard is the only reason it will never be.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Wow.

Card or no, you're a moonbat.