Quote:

---

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

---

Quote:

---

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

---

Quote:

---

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just wanna say....
Hell, you said it already, Mike.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Well, feel free to keep saying it to them's need it told! Testify, Brother Chris! Preach on!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Who benefits from Wikileaks?

The Pentagon, that's who.

Wikileaks Hacked By “Very Skilled” Attackers Prior To Iraq Doc Release (Inside Job)
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/10/22/wikileaks-hacked-by-v
ery-skilled-attackers/?boxes=financechannelforbes

Wikispooks... Can you say Yellow Cake?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin
ued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/


Also:

For those who are about to vote and help get us back on the right path.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739
.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Who benefits from Wikileaks?

The Pentagon, that's who.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Bump: Just to see the National Socialists twist..lol

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!

hehehehehe



"I got no strings, so I have fun
I'm not tied up when we need one
They've got strings but you can see
There are no strings on me!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Who benefits from Wikileaks?

The Pentagon, that's who.

---

I seem to recall that we argued a while back the hundreds of tons of WMDs were found in Iraq. Now it turns out I was not only right...even more was found then we thought.

So Bush was right. I expect your apologies to myself and Mr. Bush will be forthcoming, in fact...lets make it a new Thread.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

---

Quote:

---

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"2 (long years ago) the American people decided they had had enough of constant war, the Patriot Act, and were willing to give anyone another shot.

We did.

And soon.... realized that the lesser of 2 evils is STILL evil.

ObamaCare, bailouts, censorship, and hell... just the incompetance and childishness of liberals, have nearly bankrupted and destroyed our great nation.

Our home.

Our hope.

But, yet...

Our people were not completely bowed. Not completely broken. The flames of dissent, of revolution had been struck.

Being a free and good people, the chosen path of revolution was not to be one of blood and bullets, but of awakening.

Of giving the people a chance to correct their mistake. Thru voting, thru thought and idea.

Ron Paul made us remember who were are, the Tea Party pulled us together.

Lets all hope it has been enough.

For while this is a peaceful and honest movement, the goal of which is to awaken and teach..

Should it come to it, for the freedom and truth and hope of all mankind..

We are ready to fight. By any means necessary."

---

Quote:

---

ObamaCare, bailouts, censorship, and hell... just the incompetance and childishness of liberals, have nearly bankrupted and destroyed our great nation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Twist, my pretties....twist...

lol

---

Quote:

---

The majority opinion {of the Supreme Court} is discovering corporate rights in a Constitution written by people with a dramatically different conception of corporate power and the limits thereof, and an understanding of citizenship as something based on accountability and membership in civil society.

... {But} Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these {corporate} charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

We don't really begin to see economic enterprises chartered as corporations until the 1790s. Some are banks, others are companies that were going to build canals, turnpikes, and bridges — infrastructure projects that states did not have the money to build themselves. Citizens petitioned legislators for a corporate charter, and if a critical mass of political pressure could build in a capital, they got an act of incorporation. It specified their capitalization limitations, limited their lifespan, and dictated the boundaries of their operations and functions.

I should add, too, that as part of this effort to democratize corporations, state charters specifically spelled out how shareholder elections were to be conducted to choose directors. Corporations were supposed to resemble small republics...

I read this opinion carefully — I'm trained as a historian, not a lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts lays out an ideologically pure view of corporations as associations of citizens — leveling differences between companies, schools and other groups. So in his view Boeing is no different from Harvard, which is no different from the NAACP, or Citizens United, or my local neighborhood civic association. It's lovely prose, but as a matter of history the majority is simply wrong.

Let me put it this way: the Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association — and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom. It wasn't literal. Corporations could not vote or hold office. They held property, and to enable a shifting group of shareholders to hold that property over time and to sue and be sued in court, they were granted this fictive personhood in a limited legal context.

Early Americans had a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of corporations than the Court gives them credit for. They were much more comfortable with retaining pre-Revolutionary city or school charters than with creating new corporations that would concentrate economic and political power in potentially unaccountable institutions. When you read Madison in particular, you see that he wasn't blindly hostile to banks during his fight with Alexander Hamilton over the Bank of the United States. Instead, he's worried about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital that come with creating a class of bankers.

So even as this generation of Americans became comfortable with the idea of using the corporate form as a way to set priorities and mobilize capital, they did their best to make sure that those institutions were subordinate to elected officials and representative government. They saw corporations as corrupting influences on both the economy at large and on government — that's why they described the East India Company as imperium in imperio, a sort of "state within a state." This wasn't an outcome they were looking to replicate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you too chickenshit to put your money where your mouth is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
WMDs? Yawn.

---

Quote:

---

Guess I don't fit in with the spoiled, welfare-craving, national-socialistic, brats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Apparently Ron Paul's REAL opinions have kinda shocked Wulfie.

Ron Paul: against invading Iraq.

Ron Paul: against the death penalty

Ron Paul: against individuals using force on each other

Ron Paul: Against corporatism


Wow. Who'da thunk?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:


Guess I don't fit in with the spoiled, welfare-craving, national-socialistic, brats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Apparently Ron Paul's REAL opinions have kinda shocked Wulfie.

Ron Paul: against invading Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Ron Paul: against the death penalty

---

Quote:

---

Ron Paul: against individuals using force on each other

---

Quote:

---

Ron Paul: Against corporatism

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So tell us all again, HOW is voting for Republicans going to STOP this kind of shit? They have been, historically, the absolute worst at this kind of spending.

---