Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

primalnick

Members
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by primalnick

  1. Been on this bus since 2004. Hang in there and learn to ignore it. Believe it when you see the CBI change their rate.
  2. 10 years of insanely waiting and watching! Bought in 2004.
  3. Already doing this in Afghanistan too.
  4. Well that picture is interesting jonjon. Believe that bombs went off. I believe people died and were injured. However, I also believe there is more to this story than we are being provided by the MSM. Some facts are not matching up. For example, the FBI asked everyone for assistance as they did not know who these two were, but when Russia Today (I think) released that the russians reported them two the FBI over 2 years ago....well, yes, we did speak to them then. Why not admit it in the first place? Also, has anyone seen any definitive evidence they were actually involved? I hear rumors of the younger one in pics running away with his backpack on (I have not seen those yet). Government conspiracy? I'm not sure, but believe they will never let a good catastrophe go to waste. They are already looking for how thay can use these events to push agendas. Why do people distrust the government? I don't know....Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK, OK City bombing, Waco, and the list goes on of questionable and proven government lies and cover-ups.
  5. He was also the Mayor of a city in CA for a while. BE CAREFUL - Even Chuck Norris doesn't mess with Clint Eastwood!
  6. I know I'm not ScrumD but I will attempt to answer your question if you don't mind. Based on my understanding: 1. In 2008 the RNC Lead Cousel stated openly that the RNC did not support the binding of delegates by States and that they were free to vote their choice. Now in 2012 the RNC is singing a different tune. 2. If the allegations prove true, there are numerous counts of voter fraud. Machines rigged to make Paul votes count for Romney, delegates being threatened if they don't vote for Romney both legally and physically, etc. If, and I state, IF, the allegations prove true and/or the Court upholds the RNC statement from the 2008 election Romney may be disgraced out, stripped of all delegates, or possibly and most likely the delegates will be unbound and allowed to vote their choice. I personally agree that they will most likely attempt to drag this out past the elections. Now I ask you if you found out these were true would you want Romney as POTUS?
  7. TPS, if you seriously believe and back the words that you write then I suggest you start seriously fighting for the removal of the electoral college. It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, it doesn't matter who you voted for, it doesn't matter who won the popular vote. Whoever the electoral college casts their votes for is elected President irregardless of who the popular vote winner is. So what system is seriously disenfranchising voters? If you're against this process in the GOP, then you certainly must be againt it on the presidential election level. The question is what are you doing about it?
  8. I believe the term is "don't hate the player, hate the game". Ron Paul didn't write the rules. Other candidates have used similar stategies and won in the past. In fact, I believe a few Presidents won by delegate votes that lost the popular vote. The opposition only does not like the rules when they don't work in their favor. If he wins by the established rules then so be it. If you dislike the rules, take action and get them changed.
  9. Thanks Easy I'll look into it. One thing to note, legislation has already passed that protects the manufacturers from prosecution or responsibility if they ever proved that the vaccines caused this issue. They slipped it in as an earmark to a bill all but garaunteed to pass. Pretty sneaky, huh? Regardless, we could care less about prosecution or civil liability at this point, we would just like the causes discovered and action taken to stop it. I believe that this does not get mre media attention or government attention because it is not fatal. Until some of these politicians children or grandchildren become affected or more famous people's children become affected it will likely not take center stage. My one big question is this: Many of these children will not be able to be self supportive in life, when their parents pass on who will foot the bill for their care? YOU WILL! Then and only then will they really care. Only when it hits them in the wallet. Think about it, their is a good chance that 1 in 8-10 children of that generation will unlikely be able to work and pay taxes, and require lifelong adult care and disability. Thanks for all who are concerned. I love my daughter(s) and am thankful that it is only Autism and nothing fatal or massively debilitating.
  10. cris, I think it works sort of like this: Each State has different rules as to how the delegates must or may vote in the first ballot. Nevada being on of the States that requires them to vote for the popular vote winner. Other States allow the delegates to vote by who won their district on the first ballot. These states could potentially split the delegate count enough that Romney would not get the required minimum for the nomination. This in turn would lead to a second ballot in which the gelegates from all the States can vote for whom they want. If the are predominantly Paul supporters he could then possibly gain the nomination. I'm not entirely certain on this but I'm fairly sure that is how it works and what Paul is aiming at.
  11. I have twin daughters, one with severe autism and one not. They got their vaccines and everything at the exact same time, day, office, etc. So I'm at a loss for a complete explanation. After nearly nine years of living with this one thing I have noticed is that most professionals have no proven idea as to its cause. They have some hypothesis and speculations but nothing rock solid. Another interesting factor is that different types of treatment methods provide different results, so no one treatment works for all. Completely unexplainable. At this point myself and most parents like me do not care about how it happened or want punishment for anyone, we just want to know what causes it and to stop it from continuing.
  12. Thank you and thank you for your services in ministry as well. The "sheeple" remark was for an earlier post not yours, my apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm not trying to set anyone straight or chastise anyone. I was merely trying to further explain the code and beliefs of the military mindset. For people who may be unfamiliar to the life it can be difficult to understand in some ways. Some would consider following orders and being like sheep, and in some ways yes it is. This however is an essential element to unit and force cohesion. Thanks again.
  13. As a veteran I wouid say go ahead and try it... See how it turns out for you. You will rarely win bucking the system in the military, and even if you do it will likely cost you in the end. If you are not a veteran or serving these ideals and behaviors may be difficult to understand or digest, but they signed up for it. They all still have the right to their opinions and to vote how they feel. However, as it was said earlier, in public they are neutral and should display as such. They don't have to like the Commander-in-Chief personally or their politics, but they must respect the office. Also, by the sheeple remark I would feel its a fair guess you never served. Order, efficiency, and effectiveness comes from following orders and discipline. If everyone just did and said what they wanted I guarantee you our military would not be as effective as they are (when the politicians stay out of it). Instead they would all be like the Air Force. Just kidding flyboys! Go Navy!
  14. Actually "40 acres and a mule" was a field order from Gen. Sherman, it was never a promise by the U.S. government. The idea was attempted in U.S. Senate Bill 60 in 1866, but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The bill also only asked for the reserving of millions of acres of land for the freedmen, it did not mention giving the land to them or anything concerning mules or livestock. President Johnson also had previously overturned Gen. Sherman's field orders as well. So somewhere along the line people believed a promise had been made that actually hadn't. Many other issues surrounding reparation have surfaced as well. For instance, Americans purchased the slaves in a country where it was at that time not illegal (I'm not supporting it just stating facts) so how do they owe reparation for no legal violation at the time? Also the slaves were captured and sold by Arab and African traders, do they also owe part of this reparation? So the subject would have been very complex, especially for the time period. I'm not making an argument for no action, I am simply providing you information. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=039/llsb039.db&recNum=324 http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/theo1/projects/2001_coophenkphillips/index.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule As for the Cubans and Haitians, that is an immigration argument all to itself. Being an enlightened and intelligent individual I doubt you are drawing the line that America allowed the Cubans and not the Haitians simply because of color.
  15. If everyone were truly being objective this would not be such a huge conversation. The TRUTH is every race at some point in American history was subjected to some type of discrimination. Let's see their was the Irish, the Chinese (think railroads and old west), Japanese (WWII), Vietnamese (post-Vietnam), Blacks (slavery), Indians (self explanatory), Muslims (post 9/11), Hispanics, etc. Basically, everyone has had their turn in the barrel, granted some longer than others, in our short history. Not to mention the founders of this nation were all subjected to discriminationa and mistreatment by the British (ouch white on white). We ALL have had our struggles through history and the fact is human nature will never completely change. If you research through history in every major continent or civilization someone is abusing someone else for one of many reasons: race, religion, looks, power, tribal, etc. Is someone owed a debt? Not even close! If that idea held water the Romans would still be paying everyone in the world they enslaved and abused. Or how about the Catholic Church (I was raised Catholic)? How much for the Crusades or the Inquisition? Or how about the Gemans and the Jews? That was much more recent than slavery. Where do you stop drawing the line for how long debts are supposedly owed? Who gets to decide how much or how long? Personally, I am caucasian or white as some call it, but above all I'm an American and a veteran. I have experienced racism and still do to this day. I first experienced it in Japan in the mid 90's, it was an eye opening experience. I now deal with it due to the fact that my spouse is Hispanic and her parents dislike that I am white. We are really not welcome in their home and she takes abuse from them regularly about it. The only respect I give them is that they have never been afraid to say these things directly to my face. So please, withhold the comments about how I don't truly understand. People need to understand that being born white does not give anyone an automatic silver spoon and garauntee of success. I came from "poor white trash" on the "wrong side of the tracks". I had to back-door and claw my way up the ladder. Am I where I want to be? Not yet. America is the land of opportunity, AND THAT, is what they are trying to take away! They don't care what color you are or what religion you practice! They want the "have's" and "have not's" and they want to make it more difficult for you to cross that line to the "have's". If anyone is truly against racism they would not support any type of segregative practice. There would be no heritage months, no segregated business leagues, or segregated holidays. If you really care we would focus on American heritage, American history (good and bad), and State history (good and bad). That is how we would learn the mistakes of our past and make corrections not to expect reparation from generations and people not even associated with the misjustices. (My family did not emigrate to this country until post Civil War, do I owe you something? Do I owe the Indian's something?) Honor your country and the great men and women of it's past: Washington, Lincoln, MLK, and the list goes on, and will continue in the future. There plenty of space for your religious and heritage freedoms within your personal lives and communities. We have all the equal opportunity laws we need, just enforce them. OK. I'm done. Puts on blinfold and lights cigarette. Fire away!
  16. The facts in the Georgia case have been seriously misconstrued. It continues to be labeled as a "birther" argument when in fact it is simply a legal debate. In fact, none of the attorney's in their filings claimed Obama was not a U.S. citizen. The fact remains there are certain types of U.S. citizenship. The fact also remains that the Constitution clearly calls for a "Natural Born Citizen". That is where the legal arguments begin. There exists no absolute clear definition of what constitutes "natural born citizen". There exists arguments for both sides to answer that question. So, if you put aside ALL political interest, and take the matter simply as a legal argument then there is clearly a question that requires a clear legal definition. Based on that, in one perspective, whether Obama is kept off the ballot or not, the attorneys hope to gain a clear legal definition of a "natural born citizen" whether it supports their case or not, as it will be for the betterment of all parties. Unfortunately, politics, race, and every other aspect will be given to the argument instead of focusing on the clear legal definition desired. On a personal note, I find it completely despicable that a President (especially a lawyer) would completely ignore any Court. I'm not expecting them to personally appear to any challenge, but I would certainly expect their counsel to appear on their behalf. Nixon did, Clinton did as well. The President 's primary responsibility is support and defend the Constitution (fact), considering this case is attempting to gain a clear definition of a Constitutional requirement I would expect any President of any party to support the endeavor.
  17. Rest assured however this ends it will be appealed. That may well be where it could get interesting. One hypothesis is that Obama or his attorney will not show on purpose thereby most likely losing by summary judgment. It seems (I could be wrong) they will then appeal this to the US Supreme Court, and well, we can guess how that will likely turn out. If your in favor of Obama being outed then it is best to hope the Judge does not in fact do this, but chooses to further investigate eligibility using his own authority. There is no telling what that could or could not uncover. I am impressed that this State Judge has the cojones to go forward with this. That tells me one of two things might be likely: 1. There is some merit or interest to the arguments or 2. He has a nice pile of cash to retire on somewhere I truly believe, we as Americans have the right to uncover any truths or lies, and they should be investigated. One MAJOR disappointment is the fact that almost zero media attention has been given to this subject. I mean we are talking about a sitting President being possibly denied to have their name on the ballot. This is potentially a ground breaking case and possibly the case of the millennia. Wouldn't that, or shouldn't that be headline news? Isn't that a little more important than sinking cruise ships or weather?
  18. I am required to submit to random drug testing for my employment by federal mandate. However, I am not paid by the federal government. Many federal employees are drug screened either randomly or as part of the initial hiring process. Common logic would say if you're against drug screening for free money you must have something to hide. I also agree with the demand for legislators to submit to drug screening and it should be initiially and randomly throughout their terms. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standards? On the other hand I do not agree with the Dems fighting this for pure politics just because Dems are pro-welfare and many of these recipients vote Dem. Personally, I would really like to see politicians who vote common sense instead of strictly down party lines. Of course, if they were all held to two term limits that would change a lot of the problems, but that is another subject all together.
  19. I am curious to see what happens when and if this ever occurs. Conversations here constantly come down to the LOP/NO LOP disagreement. I will be waiting to see if either side will have the backbone to come back and admit they were wrong. Time will tell. Good Luck to all.
  20. Thanks to the sexual exploits of the pre- and actual Clinton Presidential administration I would like to think it will take more than sexual harassment accusations to sink Herman Cain. Clinton admitted to drug use, Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, and Clinton has sexual exploit troubles from his Arkansas Governor terms as well as during his Presidency. America accepted it, including his lying about it. Also, let's not forget his Whitewater issues. So with that as a Democrat precedence, I don't see how Herman Cain, found guilty of nothing, is in any hot water, yet. JMO though.
  21. I think for many the "problem" does not lye in the organization in and of itself but instead the fact that with all the cries of unity these organizations remain. When other races become the minority, as the in many States such as the southwestern States due to a booming Hispanic population, will these organizations step up and openly represent the minority if they are white? If there was a truly serious call to eradicate racism all these organizations would be dismantled. For, as long as any one race is allowed benefits or organizations that the others are not racism will definitely occur. Honestly, I invite anyone in today's America to explain why we need a Black Caucus in Congress, or a Black or Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, or scholarships that are for their race only, etc. All these items and organizations exist already that are open to all races. The true "colors" will surely show in time as the "white" population continually decreases in births versus the other races. Will the "white" population be given the same minority rights as the others were in the past? Please do not attempt to claim that they have not faced the suffrage or racism that the other's have in the past as your argument. If that is anyone's argument then they are very unfamiliar with the history of the Irish, Gypsies, and Germans, and the treatments they faced during their migrations to our wonderful country. I say this as a white male disabled veteran whose family was not in this country prior to the Civil War and to my knowledge never owned slaves.
  22. Thanks 11B. If all you people would take the time to read some of 11B's past posts you would see he openly explained how and where his info comes from. To my knowledge he has been fairly accurate so far and has given either a rate or a date. If you don't appreciate his info feel free to skip his future posts. Also, if proper spelling equals credibility than some of the notorius gurus just became far more credible because they can spell correctly or worry about it. I'll take a little more reality with some misspellings anytime. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.