Bill of Rights/ Constitution

@Lustig Andrei,

I apologize, Lustig. And to think English was my best subject...

0 Replies

I almost voted for Ron Paul.
It was very tempting.
I loved voting for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Ever hear of Young Americans For Freedom ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I almost voted for Ron Paul.
It was very tempting.
I loved voting for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Ever hear of Young Americans For Freedom ?

David

He says he never heard of Lyndon LaRouche. How do you expect him to have heard of Barry Goldwater? Or Young Americans for Freedom? He brob'ly thinks they're identical with Students for a Democratic Society.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Pauls views on all Fed regulations, return to the gold standard, decertifyig unions, and opting out of SOcial Security and doing away with most tax credits ad deductions,(As well as doing away with income tax entirely). How about hios views o Civil Rights? hes been quite vocal about his views.All of which I neither agree with nor even find sense in.

His views on some really fringie things like allowing milk to be sold with minimal health certification (and totally unpasteurized if we cant inspect it)

If the aforementioned is your reply to my request of an example of Ron Paul looney mothership statements, then I must apologize for saying you failed to reply. I didn't realize this was your reply because , remember, we are looking for looney mothership statements - not sensible, breath of fresh air, YES!, thank you!! statements. The confusion lies in our differing opinions. You are aginst civil rights and I am against the dismantling of the constitution. What I don't get is why you would want to have no rights?? No sense in civil rights? Surely, I'm missing swomething here. How is returning to the gold standard an "out there" view? It would bring integrity back to the dollar, wouldn't it? Because just printing more money seems like it would be disastrous in the end. I don't know. The milk thing is only about the fact that there are too many damn regulations. I think that is the point. The idea is that the government should not regulate everything to death. If someone sells milk to a customer , that customer should have the right to buy it in raw form or unpasteurized. Those who don't want to don't have to. What is so looney about that?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I was not aware of the darker side of JFK. I can't say it's not true because I haven't investigated it but I have never heard such a thing. Would it be fair then to compare Ron Paul with what JFK appeared to be on the surface?

1 Reply

@sKiTzo,

I've never seen you provide any facts. The RFID claim is completely unsubstantiated, like the rest of your so-called "facts," and is redolent of gross, hysterical paranoia. Without a shred of evidence, you expect people to accept wild allegations, while sneering at them because they won't consider them facts. You're just as bad as David with his idiotic claims that JFK was a "commie," for which he provides no more evidence than you do for the RF chip stupidity. You ten proceed to fling accusations at me based on your goofy paranoia about the press, without knowing a thing about me. You're a fool.

1 Reply

@sKiTzo,

sKiTzo wrote:

I was not aware of the darker side of JFK.

That 's the only side he HAD (tho I shud admit that like most politicians,
he cud be charming if he wanted to be).

sKiTzo wrote:

I can't say it's not true because I haven't investigated it
but I have never heard such a thing.

I had to investigate that nightmare on the news every nite until Nov. 1963.
His views were anathema to those of the Founders
or those of Ron Paul. The Kennedys were authoritarian-collectivists,
unfriendly to personal freedom.

sKiTzo wrote:

Would it be fair then to compare Ron Paul
with what JFK appeared to be on the surface?

NO. That woud be like comparing Ron Paul to a pile of ****.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're just as bad as David with his idiotic claims that JFK was a "commie,"
for which he provides no more evidence than you do for the RF chip stupidity.

Like Roosevelt, the Kennedys had soft spots
in their hearts for communism, but I will not allege
that thay were the same as the Rosenbergs. Thay were not.

There was a semi-funny joke among conservatives
that the policies of the Kennedy Administration
were of friendship toward "the neutrals";
neutrality toward our enemies (the Reds)
and hostility toward our friends.
The trouble was that the joke was supported by the facts of the time.
It was scary & distressing.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No joke which entails political polemic is funny. Note that i said that you provide no evidence. You still have not. It's an idiotic accusation which you can't back up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

No joke which entails political polemic is funny.

That depends upon the creativity of its author,
but u can be sovereign over your taste in humor.

Setanta wrote:

Note that i said that you provide no evidence.

I can provide evidence; I cannot provide surprizes.
I was not privy to secrets.
Let 's begin with Kennedy 's knife in the back
to the Cuban Freedom Fighters, shall we???
Those brave HEROS believed that America
wud keep its word, in promising its air support.
The Freedom Fighters believed, in error,
that thay were dealing with men of honor.
(Little did thay know that honor among Kennedys
was of the quality that was manifested in 1969,
when Ted abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne in her air bubble
in his car, while he was on the fone conferring with his
political advisors and his attorneys and metabolizing,
metabolizing, metabolizing, metabolizing, as fast as he cud, as Mary Jo slowly suffocated,
in the cold of the water for however many hours, until Ted reported her plight, the next day.)

How about Kennedy's excoriation of Indiana Sen. Homer Capehart
during the summer of 1962
when Sen. Capeheart anticipated Kennedy 's October surprize (b4 the Congressional elections)
of the communist missles in Cuba. Kennedy accused him of being "an alarmist" in warning of those nuclear missles.
He never apologized for that, as I remember; his silence was deafening when he took credit for it in October.

I vaguely remember numerous Kennedy subversions
of anti-communist movements in Asia & Africa, e.g., Moise Tshombe (sp??) in the Belgian Congo.
Kennedy 's setting up Diem for assassination in Viet Nam because Diem was too anti-communistic.
There was a great deal more pro-commie activity by the Kennedys,
but its been about 5O years; slow in remembering.

I shud give Kennedy credit for beginning the Space Program,
in his effort to minimize his embarrassment qua his betrayal
of the anti-communist Freedom Fighters in Cuba.
He never rescued them; I don 't believe that he even APOLOGIZED
to them for defaulting in his promised military support,
to please Adlai Stevenson, getting them imprisoned and getting them killed.

Perfidy: thy name is Kennedy.

Setanta wrote:

You still have not. It's an idiotic accusation which you can't back up.

If u want MORE back up,
I can apply more thinking to it.

I gotta admit that with the advent of Ronald Reagan,
the collapse of communism occurred a lot better than I thawt it wud.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That depends upon the creativity of its author

True, so my admonition is that you post this on your fridge and heed it. Creativity has not been your strong point Dave.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

DAVID wrote:

That depends upon the creativity of its author

farmerman wrote:

True, so my admonition is that you post this on your fridge and heed it.
Creativity has not been your strong point Dave.

Explain your objection ??
Where did I go rong ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco because Central Intelligence fucked every thing up from the very beginning, which is why Eisenhower refused to approve the operation even before Kennedy was elected. Then Central Intelligence blindsided Kennedy with the idiot operation. Like Eisenhower with the coup in Iran, he got suckered, but he never let them pull that **** on him again. The only way your alleged "freedom fighters" could have been saved would have been with a full-scale invasion of Cuba, which our armed were not prepared to do at the time. It would have taken weeks, at least, to prepare for that, and the poor fools who Central Intelligence had suckered into landing in the Bay of Pigs just couldn't be saved. What Edward Kennedy can be accused of, long after John was dead, has nothing to do with an idiot accusation that John was a communist. Character assasination is a conservative specialty, though, isn't it?

You want to do more thinking? Why, so you can invent more bullshit? As usual, you're just making **** up--you hate the Kennedy's because they weren't bat-**** crazy, lunatic fringe conservatives like you.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

From your history on this board, Ive noted a certain obtuseness at your uptake on most cultural and language issues. While its true that done creatively, political satire can be quite funny. However, I dont think you can be accused of being a practitioner.
No offense meant.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco because Central Intelligence fucked
every thing up from the very beginning, [What did Truman say about "the buck" ??]
which is why Eisenhower refused to approve the operation even before Kennedy was elected.

OK, so here setanta tries to convince us that IKE cud stop the CIA, but for Kennedy: it was IMPOSSIBLE.
Surely it was also impossible for Kennedy to tell the Freedom Fighters
that thay were not getting air support, either,
because Stevenson had not complained yet.

Setanta wrote:

Then Central Intelligence blindsided Kennedy with the idiot operation.

YEAH, poor Kennedy. He didn 't notice,
and the operation was "idiot" because it was to bring freedom
to the people of Cuba, enslaved under communism.
Freedom is anathema to setanta & liberals.

Setanta wrote:

Like Eisenhower with the coup in Iran, he got suckered, but he never let them pull that **** on him again.
The only way your alleged "freedom fighters"

Look at Setanta's choice of words. Do thay reveal anything of his mentality??
His ideology?????? Did he weep when the communist flag was torn down
from atop the Kremlin on Christmas of 1991??
His post shows that thay are not FREEDOM FIGHTERS against communism,
thay r only " alleged 'freedom fighters' ". [Emfasis was added by David.]
I infer that his implied meaning is that communism is not slavery,
that its actually OK (OK with Setanta, anyway!), but his writing is not entirely clear.

Setanta wrote:

could have been saved would have been with a full-scale invasion of Cuba,
which our armed were not prepared to do at the time.

Setanta wud have us believe that competent
co-ordination was beyond the ability of the Kennedy Administration.
He might be right.

Setanta wrote:

It would have taken weeks, at least, to prepare for that,
and the poor fools who Central Intelligence had suckered into landing in the Bay of Pigs just couldn't be saved.

Yeah, poor Kennedy; there was nothing he cud do; 'course not.
He stole the election in November 1960 and then began getting briefed.
He was inaugurated January 20, 1961.
The anti-communist invasion began on April 17, 1961,
so OBVIOUSLY, the whole thing was Ike 's fault.
Thay shud have impeached him retro-actively!
Kennedy had nothing to do with it. He had MORE IMPORTANT things to do than attend to invasions!

Setanta wrote:

What Edward Kennedy can be accused of, long after John was dead,
has nothing to do with an idiot accusation that John was a communist.

My post made the point that the same quality of morality and honor fungibly pervaded the Kennedys,
including their treachery against the Cuban Freedom Fighters
as well as the silent abandonment of their friend, Mary Jo, in her air bubble,
as it slowly became depleted of oxygen, as Ted checked in at the desk,
telling no one of Mary 's plight, spoke to his political advisors
on the fone for hours, conferred with his lawyers on the fone for more hours,
while Mary was trapped, semi-submerged and slowly, in agony, perishing from oxygen starvation.

Setanta wrote:

Character assasination is a conservative specialty, though, isn't it?

The Kennedys had no character.
Thay were lower than pigs.

Setanta wrote:

You want to do more thinking? Why, so you can invent more bullshit? As usual, you're just making **** up--you hate the Kennedy's because they weren't bat-**** crazy, lunatic fringe conservatives like you.

U just hate to see any opposition to communism.
We won. U lost! Multiple be the chuckles.

Kennedy stole the election and u see what he got for his trouble. HA. HA. HA.

David

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

From your history on this board, Ive noted a certain obtuseness at your uptake on most cultural and language issues.

I don 't invest much time in keeping current on cultural innovation
nor recent nuances in the vernacular.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

No, that's just your typical, phony lawyer word game. The more i read of your drivel the more convinced i am that either you were never a lawyer, or you were no damned good at it. Eisenhower had learned not to trust Central Intelligence after they suckered him in Iran in 1953. Kennedy only learned to mistrust them as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It's not surprise to me that you don't understand simple concepts such as this.

Liar, slanderer--the operation was idiot precisely because it entailed no air or naval support, which is the principle reason Eisenhower said no dice. I don't hate freedom--i do despise people like you who wrap yourselves in a phone freedom flag. That operation was doomed with anything short of a full-scale invasion by United States military forces--making it idiotic.

I say alleged freedom fighters because there is no reason to assume that freedom is what they would have delivered. It's entirely possible that they would have simply set up another tinpot dictator like Batista, and the historical record after 1898 suggests that they very likely would have done exactly that.

You really don't know a ******* thing about the details of that operation, do you? It's enough for you that you irrationally hate John Kennedy to attempt to suggest that it ever had any reasonable prospect of success. At no time did i state that it was Eisenhower's fault--liar.

What evidence do you have that Kennedy stole the election? Just more of your made up bullshit. I'll tell ya, MENSA must have really low standards.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

No, that's just your typical, phony lawyer word game.

????

Setanta wrote:

The more i read of your drivel the more convinced i am that either you were never a lawyer, or you were no damned good at it.

My clients were THRILLED, with the results I got for them in court.
I remember some (literal) jumping for JOY.
I 'll deem their opinions to out-rank yours, setanta. It was fun.
People enjoy doing what thay do well.
Your posts have exposed your confusion on such innumerable issues
whereof u r "convinced" that 1 more is of no account.

Setanta wrote:

Eisenhower had learned not to trust Central Intelligence after they suckered him in Iran in 1953.

U keep referring back to this event, obsessively.
For the record: I 've never had any problem with the Shah of Iran.

Setanta wrote:

Kennedy only learned to mistrust them as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
It's not surprise to me that you don't understand simple concepts such as this.

How can u talk so much, without saying anything??

Setanta wrote:

Liar, slanderer--the operation was idiot precisely because it entailed no air or naval support,

Your allegation is false.
Maybe u did not read the papers at the time.
There was much tumult in the press qua Kennedy 's acquiescence to Stevenson 's complaints,
such that he aborted promised support, abandoning the Freedom Fighters in the middle of their heroic quest.
Kennedy took a LIBERAL interpretation of his military promises.
The progeny of perfidy and treachery is liberalism.

Setanta wrote:

which is the principle reason Eisenhower said no dice.

It looks (contextually) like u mean PRINCIPAL.
"Principle" means something else, Setanta.
Ike said no, only in regard to the approaching end of his term of office.
As a courtesy, he allowed his successor to handle it as he chose.
I don 't approve of that choice, but I was not the President.
He shud have enforced the Monroe Doctrine.

Setanta wrote:

I don't hate freedom--i do despise people like you

I refuse to generate any counter-hatred.
It is too much effort and u r not worth it.

Setanta wrote:

who wrap yourselves in a phone freedom flag.

I fully support free speech,
tho I 'm not entirely sure about telemarketers' intrusions.

Setanta wrote:

That operation was doomed with anything short of a full-scale invasion
by United States military forces--making it idiotic.

Thank u for that information, General Setanta.
Is it true that u r lecturing at the Army War College now ?

Setanta wrote:

I say alleged freedom fighters because there is no reason to assume that freedom is what they would have delivered. It's entirely possible that they would have simply set up another tinpot dictator like Batista, and the historical record after 1898 suggests that they very likely would have done exactly that.

According to U,
Castro 's communist slavery is better than life with Batista??
If so, please tell us exactly Y, if u don 't mind?????

0 Replies

Loon

1 Reply

I have made no claim to the effect that Cubans were better off under Castro's regime. That's typical of your reactionary hysteria, and your inability to see anything other than your warped view of the world. I also have no reason to assume that the Cubans would have been better off with your alleged freedom fighters in charge--and especially not if a Batista-like dictator were in charge.

Wikipedia's article on Fulgencio Batista

"Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 "Revolt of the Sergeants" that overthrew the authoritarian rule of Gerardo Machado. Batista then appointed himself chief of the armed forces with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlled the five-member Presidency. He maintained this control through a string of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba on a populist platform. He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, deemed progressive for its time, and served until 1944. After finishing his term he lived in the United States, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup that preempted the election.

"Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans. Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive regime then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba. To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace — which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and anti-Batista demonstrations — Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret police and U.S.-supplied weaponry to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing as many as 20,000 Cubans."

You're so damned ignorant it's really a waste of time to try to pound any reality through your thick skull.

0 Replies

Bill of Rights/ Constitution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know