Do you like Ron Paul?

[RJF]

Then you might just be part of a militia. I think that's what you call stereo-typing.

'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/)

[murda-c]

As long as it helps prevent terrorism i'm happy.

[Matej]

Hopefully they will start arresting all the activist nutjobs always slowing down traffic at Country Club Plaza, and take away their guns and abort their babies.

[cc4usmc]

As long as it helps prevent terrorism i'm happy.

Just wait, eventually these "militia" members will be labeled terrorists.

[98s14inaz]

Just wait, eventually these "militia" members will be labeled terrorists.

I've been saying that for years. Eventually anyone who doesn't agree with the gov't be labeled a "terrorist" and dealt with accordingly. It's not hard to make anyone look like a terrorist or whatever PC term they come up with for "undesirables" or "troublemakers".

Mankind has been doing that since the beginning of governments. Witches, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Indians, Communists, Muslims, Extremists, gays...blah blah blah. Let me know if any of this sounds familiar. Everyone hates someone, it is the tie that binds us together as a species. So many books and novels written on the subject.

One day we will all have to pick a side...

[allntrlundrgrnd]

ron paul '12!!

*fbi knocks on door*

[kingkilburn]

As long as KKK and neo Nazi are labeled terrorist as well.

[SochBAT]

And Zealots?

I'm a terrorist. Woohoo!

[fromxtor]

I must be in the militia then, so does the fact that im in the military cancel that out or something?

[ESmorz]

One day we will all have to pick a side...

Not if you die tomorrow.

[bboyt3nsk]

I love ron paul.

[anthony240]

cool! FOXNEWS!! I especially like how they still say "president-elect" like it leaves a bad taste in their mouths

[RJF]

cool! FOXNEWS!! I especially like how they still say "president-elect" like it leaves a bad taste in their mouths

Wasn't Foxnews. It was the Missouri State report.

[Matej]

Republican article indirectly undermining the Democrats. Nothing new in Missouri or on Fox.

Blah blah, everyone knows it happens the other way around too, blah blah.


http://www.superpoop.com/032409/ron-paul-on-ice.jpg

[98s14inaz]

Not if you die tomorrow.

Tommorrow, the day after, the day after that. I'm at peace with it. We are all dying.

[98s14inaz]

Republican article indirectly undermining the Democrats. Nothing new in Missouri or on Fox.

Blah blah, everyone knows it happens the other way around too, blah blah.


http://www.superpoop.com/032409/ron-paul-on-ice.jpg

Would you look at the ass on that one...

[KA24DESOneThree]

I probably am on a terrorist watch list, and I don't care. I'm working on an anti-government propaganda campaign, stockpiling ammo, and buying guns. I provide legal help to people arrested on drug and weapons charges and encourage the subversion of laws which are counter-liberty. I've open carried here in California and refuse to carry ID when doing so.

I think the Branch Davidians were justified in their initial resistance to the FBI/ATF raid and I think Randy Weaver suffered horribly at the hands of an oppressive government. McVeigh was fairly right in his convictions but wrong in his execution.

I believe the Fed should be abolished and all members charged with fraud.

I believe all cops are ethically lacking and all military members should immediately be let go and the armed forces disbanded; the various military weaponry should be distributed to the states and put in the militia armory.

Force is not a viable option unless in response to force, however. He who does not harm me is not to be harmed, period. I am anti-war and anti-violence, but he who harms me will be put in the ground. If I cannot exact my retribution without harming innocents, I will forgo my retribution.

[dynamicck]

Force is not a viable option unless in response to force, however. He who does not harm me is not to be harmed, period. I am anti-war and anti-violence, but he who harms me will be put in the ground. If I cannot exact my retribution without harming innocents, I will forgo my retribution.

Hmmm...what if someone harms your family? or friends? or tries to take possession of your property? Will you harm them? :keke:

[98s14inaz]

I probably am on a terrorist watch list, and I don't care. I'm working on an anti-government propaganda campaign, stockpiling ammo, and buying guns. I provide legal help to people arrested on drug and weapons charges and encourage the subversion of laws which are counter-liberty. I've open carried here in California and refuse to carry ID when doing so.

I think the Branch Davidians were justified in their initial resistance to the FBI/ATF raid and I think Randy Weaver suffered horribly at the hands of an oppressive government. McVeigh was fairly right in his convictions but wrong in his execution.

I believe the Fed should be abolished and all members charged with fraud.

I believe all cops are ethically lacking and all military members should immediately be let go and the armed forces disbanded; the various military weaponry should be distributed to the states and put in the militia armory.

Force is not a viable option unless in response to force, however. He who does not harm me is not to be harmed, period. I am anti-war and anti-violence, but he who harms me will be put in the ground. If I cannot exact my retribution without harming innocents, I will forgo my retribution.

W..........................T...................... .........F!

Wearing the tinfoil hat a little tight are we? lol Since you brought up good ol boy Tim McVeigh...what did the people in that building do to him to exact his retribution? I think more than a few of them were innocents. Just because you work for the government does not make one an enemy. If McVeigh wasn't so much of a coward he would have assassinated a single target instead of mass murdering an entire building full of people. I have more respect for an assassin than a terrorist...not that I am condoning either.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Let's not reading! Re-read what I wrote about McVeigh.

Just because someone works for the government, they are an enemy of freedom.

Harming my family or friends or stealing from me is harming me. I have no qualms about killing someone over my property.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I actually like Ron Paul a LOT. He's the most right wing politician on the entire Republican party. Too bad that the word Republican has been recently so related to the word "god". The two actually have nothing to do with each other yet have been mixed together more than rum and coke. And too bad Ron Paul has been associated with the nutjob truth for 911 people.

Also, I want to make one thing clear. We have been attacked exactly twice by a foreign country/terrorist org in the past 200 years. The creation of a group that identifies terrorists is like Homer creating Bear Watch on the Simpsons. I know that it's serious business but that's what our military is for! Bring em home to protect our borders damn it!

[Vatche]

i think wow players should be considered terrorists.


and ron paul was cool, til he started religious propaganda

[WanganRunner]

Hopefully Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian in 2012. If he does, he will almost be assured 5% of the popular vote and thus matching federal funding for the Libertarian party in the 2016 election. This will drastically reshape the American political landscape and force the GOP to change to compete. I expect that they would cater less to the social right and more to fiscal conservatives, re-absorbing the Libertarians and hopefully some "blue dog" democrats. They would then be in shape to pose a serious threat to the Democrats.

Or he can run as a Republican again and make zero impact, but I hope he doesn't do that. He has a chance to make history in a big way.

[RJF]

So, those of you who said we lost rights during the past 8 years. Try again. We're losing more rights as we speak.

Our representatives in Congress and the Senate are being dismissed, so they can't even offer debate on some of Dear Leader's agenda.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he may use a procedural maneuver, never used before, to fast-track nationalized healthcare through the senate. The maneuver would allow Democrooks to bypass Senate rules and pass their massive piece of legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes and with no input from the minority.
The AP reported:

Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Wednesday he's willing to move sweeping health care legislation through the Senate with a procedural maneuver that would block a GOP filibuster. The prospect of the controversial tactic has already ignited Republicans' ire, and key Senate Democratic chairmen have said they don't want to do it.

Reid, D-Nev., took a different position on a conference call with reporters.

"I think it's something we need to consider," Reid said.

At issue is a so-called reconciliation bill, which could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes and without Democrats fearing a GOP filibuster. Democrats would struggle to gather 60 votes needed to break a filibuster for something as complex as a plan to meet President Barack Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's health care system to cover 48 million uninsured Americans.

Revising health care via reconciliation has been viewed favorably by House Democrats. The House Budget Committee included language providing for the method in its annual budget resolution released Wednesday. Reconciliation is not favored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and was not part of his committee's plan.

White House officials reiterated Wednesday that it's not their preferred method but they don't want to take it off the table.

Barack Obama told the country on Tuesday that the democrat's plan of spending billions of taxpayer money to nationalize healthcare would help the economy.

[mRclARK1]

I agree with 98S14inaz for nearly all what he said... One day everyone will have to pick a side.

KA24DESonethree is basically advocating anarchy. FYI I know many cops. I know some cops who are very ethically lacking yes... But I also know many who are the most ethical and trustworthy people you'd ever meet. If they ever felt they were being used as a pawn to enforce laws that wrongfully infringe upon peoples basic rights... They would do something about it. You just make blanket statements labeling anyone who works for X (government, military etc.) as bad. There will ALWAYS be corruption. It's part of the human condition... But the system in place works as well as any probably ever will.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill.

Glad you're so ready to use lethal force to defend your property. Ever killed anyone before? It's not fun and games or a refreshing exercise of your freedom. I'm not doing it over a piece of personal property.

What concerns me the most about things being labeled a militia or terrorist group or just "dangerous to society" is how it's being so easily applied to religion these days. If you can't follow that road to it's logical end without me spelling it out for you, then I suggest you read some history and learn to use your brain.

I also watched Obama's speech/address on Tuesday... I was indifferent. I was a little curious if it was his own words, or a teleprompter, that told him to refer to "his" second term in the future tense as an implied/explicit fact, and not a future possibility.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

So, those of you who said we lost rights during the past 8 years. Try again. We're losing more rights as we speak.

Our representatives in Congress and the Senate are being dismissed, so they can't even offer debate on some of Dear Leader's agenda.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he may use a procedural maneuver, never used before, to fast-track nationalized healthcare through the senate. The maneuver would allow Democrooks to bypass Senate rules and pass their massive piece of legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes and with no input from the minority.
The AP reported:

Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Wednesday he's willing to move sweeping health care legislation through the Senate with a procedural maneuver that would block a GOP filibuster. The prospect of the controversial tactic has already ignited Republicans' ire, and key Senate Democratic chairmen have said they don't want to do it.

Reid, D-Nev., took a different position on a conference call with reporters.

"I think it's something we need to consider," Reid said.

At issue is a so-called reconciliation bill, which could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes and without Democrats fearing a GOP filibuster. Democrats would struggle to gather 60 votes needed to break a filibuster for something as complex as a plan to meet President Barack Obama's goal of overhauling the nation's health care system to cover 48 million uninsured Americans.

Revising health care via reconciliation has been viewed favorably by House Democrats. The House Budget Committee included language providing for the method in its annual budget resolution released Wednesday. Reconciliation is not favored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and was not part of his committee's plan.

White House officials reiterated Wednesday that it's not their preferred method but they don't want to take it off the table.

Barack Obama told the country on Tuesday that the democrat's plan of spending billions of taxpayer money to nationalize healthcare would help the economy.
if you can't understand why millions and millions of Americans hated Bush then you're a hopeless soul and there's no treating you.

[RJF]

if you can't understand why millions and millions of Americans hated Bush then you're a hopeless soul and there's no treating you.

And if you can't see that the US Constitution is being shredded by this administration then we're all screwed.

Look at the GIVE Act being proposed. Read a history book, looks very similar to the Hitler Youth of the 1930's

HR 1388 “GIVE” Act Could Force Mandatory Service Requirement on All Young Americans : Red, Green, and Blue (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/23/hr-1388-give-act-forces-mandatory-service-requirement-on-all-young-americans/)

The lynch-mob attack on AIG, fueled by the administration. Look up "Krystal Nacht" in Germany.

Also, the planned White House takeover of the 2010 Census.

The power grab by the Administration to take control of private businesses.

FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - Geithner ‘power grab’ could worry creditors (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6c2516c-197b-11de-9d34-0000779fd2ac.html)

And the attempt to take control of the media.

Does Cardin's bill threaten free speech? - Editors Weblog (http://www.editorsweblog.org/newspaper/2009/03/does_cardins_bill_threaten_free_speech.php)

If the proposed spending, nationalization of healthcare, cap and trade energy taxes and the tax increases don't scare you, just these few items should.

[imotion s14]

KA24DESonethree is basically advocating anarchy

He's saying that the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished, not the government. lol

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill.

The founders felt the same way, which is why they formed a Republic with a constitution.

[mRclARK1]

^^^ A Democratic republic. A republic is a form of democracy.

Just because someone works for the government, they are an enemy of freedom.

Unless he meant to say "does not mean they are an enemy of freedom" or is missing a question mark at the end of that sentence, it would sound to me like he's pretty hateful of anything government. Period. Hell... When I was in the military I guess I was an enemy of freedom, and may soon be again.

[KA24DESOneThree]

No question mark, no forgotten words.

If you work for the government in any capacity, you are an enemy of freedom.

If you are a police officer, you work for a corrupt and unjust legal system. Any officer who believes in the Constitution is not an officer for more than one week. One week in and he could see the offenses and usurpations of liberty, and would quit.

If you are in the military, you work for the goals of corrupt and imperialist lawmakers. If our military hadn't gone around the world sticking its nose in other peoples' problems, would we have had 9/11? No. Period. You military members are just pieces of meat with a gun, walking forts, to the legislators. They look at you with no more adoration than they would a check-out clerk, why else would they send you to die in some fucked-up country?

Can you imagine what would happen if some random white people blew up the Imam Hussain Mosque? Turns out they were Canadians, but they maybe were trained or funded or something by America, so the Iraqis, Iranians, and a few other Arab countries invade New Hampshire and occupy it.

Wouldn't you go to New Hampshire and attempt to repel some of the occupying force? Would that make you a good guy or a bad guy?

If you work for the government in any capacity, you support its goals by providing it with your labor hours.

I do not believe our government should be abolished. However, I do believe it should be scaled back about 99.999%. When government makes laws that infringe on the individual for the collective, that government has crossed the line. When government destroys the free market, takes the dollar off an actual gold (or even silver) standard, that government has crossed the line. When government sends hundreds of thousands of our troops to fight a phony war, ignoring other nations' sovereignty in the process, that government has crossed the line.

Do I loathe what we have become? Absolutely.

I've never killed anyone before. I hope it never comes to that. However, I am willing and able to do so should it be necessary.

[imotion s14]

^^^ A Democratic republic. A republic is a form of democracy.

LOL

The US is a Constitutional Republic and a republic is NOT a form of democracy. We use democratic elections, but democratic elections does not a democracy make. To the founders, democracy was a dirty word and just another form of tyranny.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican; should the judicial review be maximized."A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" - Thomas Jefferson

[murda-c]

Well i mean that's why we're spreading democracy around the world. rite?

[mRclARK1]

LOL

The US is a Constitutional Republic and a republic is NOT a form of democracy. We use democratic elections, but democratic elections does not a democracy make. To the founders, democracy was a dirty word and just another form of tyranny.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" - Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system.

There is no form of government simply called "democracy". Democracy is a principle that guides a form of government. Democratic republics, parliamentary democracy's etc. are all forms of democracy. Because the founders didn't intend a democracy doesn't mean it is, in effect, not one.

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.

The United States is also listed as a democratic nation in nearly all sources, such as the UN's list of democratic nations, and many others.

[imotion s14]

Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system.

There is no form of government simply called "democracy". Democracy is a principle that guides a form of government. Democratic republics, parliamentary democracy's etc. are all forms of democracy. Because the founders didn't intend a democracy doesn't mean it is, in effect, not one.

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.

The United States is also listed as a democratic nation in nearly all sources, such as the UN's list of democratic nations, and many others.

It's never listed anywhere in the ultimate source, the Constitution.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” - James Madison

So who do I believe.. the framers of the constitution or the United Nations? (that's a rhetorical question BTW)

[mRclARK1]

It's never listed anywhere in the ultimate source, the Constitution.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” - James Madison

So who do I believe.. the framers of the constitution or the United Nations? (that's a rhetorical question BTW)

I think the UN is full of shit most of the time as well. However I think they can tell the difference between a, in practice, democratic nation and one that is not. Common sense can tell you that.

The word democracy isn't mentioned in many of the constitutions, charters, bill of rights etc. of many democratic nations. So the fact it's not mentioned in the US constitution proves nothing. By the definition of the word "Democracy" the United States is a democratically governed nation.

A rose by any other name...

[Matej]

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. When horses were a mode of transportation, America was in constant conflict with England, and people needed to bear arms to protect themselves against each other and Native Americans whose land they were taking.

Not saying it wasn't an amazing thing for its time, but now it's 2009. The basic principles are great, but some people take the whole thing way too literally. Either update it every decade or so, or put it in a museum. Times and society change.

A great world power needs to constantly move forward and absorb new ideas. Otherwise, it won't last. Just look at history, most places which once were homes to the most advanced societies of the world are now housing third world countries. They all reached a point at which they thought their society almost perfect, and became reluctant to embrace changes. Now they're dust.

[KA24DESOneThree]

I agree with the idea that the Constitution is outmoded, but the liberties it gives us are not. Until we can create a document which protects us further, we can either amend or look to a corrupt Supreme Court to "interpret" it for us.

There is no partial freedom; freedom either is or is not. We should only be under guidance of the government when our actions directly affect others.

I'm not above bribery to get done what needs to get done.

[ESmorz]

It's never listed anywhere in the ultimate source, the Constitution.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” - James Madison

So who do I believe.. the framers of the constitution or the United Nations? (that's a rhetorical question BTW)

Stop quoting dead guys.

No one cares.

We are meant to hunt shit, fuck shit, and fertilize the soil. All this other shit is ancilliary. Cognition and free time are dirty little bastards.

[colten]

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. When horses were a mode of transportation, America was in constant conflict with England, and people needed to bear arms to protect themselves against each other and Native Americans whose land they were taking.

Not saying it wasn't an amazing thing for its time, but now it's 2009. The basic principles are great, but some people take the whole thing way too literally. Either update it every decade or so, or put it in a museum. Times and society change.

A great world power needs to constantly move forward and absorb new ideas. Otherwise, it won't last. Just look at history, most places which once were homes to the most advanced societies of the world are now housing third world countries. They all reached a point at which they thought their society almost perfect, and became reluctant to embrace changes. Now they're dust.

You can update the Constitution. It's called an amendment. They've been amending the Constitution for the past 200 years.

[98s14inaz]

You know what grinds my gears? People that try to change my country for the worst. I can understand giving people and groups more rights but now shit is being taken away. You take one of our documents and wipe your ass on it because of your ignorance and fear. I truly understand why the confederacy was created, not about slaves but about smaller government and states' rights. Why oh why is there such a focus on disarming the people and taking away more of our rights? Because unarmed citizens are called subjects and easier to control. You can make fun of all the dead guys you want but they were right and unfortunately you will realize that too late. When the time comes you will ask people like me for help and we will say no, get your own guns...oh wait, you gave those up didn't you? Dumbasses.