# here is a fit topic for ron paul doubters



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

On just one day, in honor of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the new American revolutionaries brought in $6.04 million, another one-day record. The average donation was $102; we had 58,407 individual contributors, of whom an astounding 24,915 were first-time donors. And it was an entirely voluntary, self-organized, decentralized, independent effort on the internet. Must be the "spammers" I keep hearing about!

That is the introduction of an e mail that was sent to me by the ron paul campaign staff. give ron paul a chance i'm telling you, you have to listen to him on you tube or read his speaches so you do not get the spin of the mainstream media! If you like him but are afraid he won't get enough votes do not waiver, this momentum will keep up and he will win the election. I said before, it's gonna take guts from everyone who supports ron paul to do some of the work and spread the word and change some minds. IN IT TO WIN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh yeah uke: mainstream media election munipulation
 empower yourself vote ron paul


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I like your attitude swampbuck, but I find it hard to believe that those contributions set a record. Heck the Chinese marched into the White House with grocery bags full of more money than that for Bill Clinton didn't they? 

Stick to your guns swampbuck, I personally could use some other opinions. A few days ago I had Huckabee as my first choice. He is a little to soft on illegal alliens, and now I am back to thinking Romney is my guy. Where is the scratch my head emoticon?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I heard a new Ron Paul ad today on the radio.

"I'll eliminate income taxes and replace them with ....

... NOTHING"

I have to admit the guy comes up with some real enticing "sound bit hooks"

Revolves around the premise of rolling back spending to the numbers of one decade ago.

Anyone here with any more information on that one??

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter by any stretch ... his stance regarding the war against Radical Fundamentalist Islam has him under the bus for me.

But he is a very interesting fellow to watch.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

hey decoy
about the no income tax thing, well this year our national budget is going to be 3 trillion bucks. way way back in the good old days of 2000 our budget was 1.8 trillion, LOL oh sorry! anytime I say the word trillion my brain shorts out with a big old cant compute  anyway... our income tax only accounts for around one third of our government's income. so if you didn't pay those taxes our budget would have to be pushed back to around the 1.8 trillion mark again. the only way to do that is to cut the fat off our government, and I think there is plenty there to cut on. Ron Paul believes that our country has voted itself too many gifts and good deals, we can't support it now and it's only getting worse. our economy is in the hurt big time, the only reason we are not seeing it is because of this war and the money we tax payers are spending on it. plus the 3 billion dollars a day that we are borrowing from china and japan are doing a nice job of articially inflating our economy. once those loans come due, it will be we tax payers that have to pay them off with interest. our money on the world economy is down by almost 50% that means we all get to pay about twice as much for eveything we buy compaired to the year 2000. I dread the day when our fighting men and women of the military get to come back home only to find that what little money they make is worth even less.
Support the Troops! save their economy!!!
Ron Paul 2008!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

wiskodie1

I surely would not deny the theory is mathamatically workable ...

but I submit it's not plausible

And definatley not possible considering the Socialist mindset of the American Public.

And I understand his basic premise of ending War would cut substantially the cost of day to day life is dollars ... but again I also submit it would have a great cost interms of diminshed life expectancy here in America and elsewhere in the World.

I will concede he might have a few atributes of a great "Thinker" but not so much a great "Leader"


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Ron Paul is a vote wasted HE CANNOT WIN.

Vote Mitt Romney !!!


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

if you don't understand the income tax and federal reserve elimination proposal watch the documentary America Freedom to Facsism i learned a lot and don't fully understand it yet, but that movie is at the root of why you should vote ron paul (among other things) im sure you could get it on net flix other wise e mail me i could mail it to you if you promise to return it im serious! [email protected] and yes ron paul set the single day campaign fundraising record once in nov at 4.4 mill. (remember remember the 5th of november) and trumped it on dec. 16 with 6.02 mill (the anniversary of the boston tea party, this is our tea party!) grassroots activism can still change this country more people need to change the way they think! of course the uke: mainstream media will not do it's job. it is a disservice to democracy in this country TIME IS RUNNING OUT take some initiative get your reasearch done it's not that hard use the internet it is the great eqaulizer! google ron paul youtube ron paul then do some work ive personnaly written editorials and donated money and guess what it's not enough i need you to join me to effect change! vote for ron paul empower yourself. become the change you want to see otherwise you have no place complaining if the lesser of two evils is elected. swampbuck over & out
p.s. get :******: up


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Bore.224 said:


> Ron Paul is a vote wasted HE CANNOT WIN.
> 
> Vote Mitt Romney !!!


IF THAT IS YOUR THINKING YOU ARE SELLING YOURSELF SHORT! :roll:


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

DecoyDummy said:


> wiskodie1
> 
> I surely would not deny the theory is mathamatically workable ...
> 
> ...


ON THE CONTRARY ron paul has an action plan to address these issues that face our nation and you don't have to read a fifty page essay to understand it go to his website and do some reading youtube some of his speaches and find out for yourself mainly from what i understand follow the constitution and government accountability

a great thinker is a great leader look at all the movments in the history of mankind there is a great thinker mobilizing people

i leave you with a qoute of ron paul " the attitude or idea that, "we came to washington to change washington, but washington changed us", does not apply to me."

hey i did not believe him either but iv'e done my research and i can honestly say i have faith in this man, when is the last time you've truly thought that about the leadership in this country


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> a great thinker is a great leader look at all the movments in the history of mankind there is a great thinker mobilizing people


Dont get me wrong, I like a lot of Ron Pauls ideas, I wish a lot more folks running shared his views. However, this blanket statement demands I stand up, and clearly say....

What about Jimmy Carter????

By the way, Im still torn on who to support. I really like Ron Pauls stance on a national level, but internationally, I dont see eye to eye with him. I am scared of Guiliani, McCane hasnt earned my respect back after the 2000 election, Romney was kept in office by the same folks that vote for Kennedy, Im not entirely sold on Huckabee, and I'd like to hear more on thompson. I'll probably just end up asking Decoy Dummy who hes voting for and go with that


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Gun Owner said:


> swampbuck said:
> 
> 
> > a great thinker is a great leader look at all the movments in the history of mankind there is a great thinker mobilizing people
> ...


Just because someone is a great thinker does not mean you're like minded with them, hitler stalin marx darwin frued are considered great thinkers in history by many it doesn't mean their ideas represent you

i would suggest learning what ron paul is all about and decide for yourself
i have found that ron paul is a strict constitutionalist (foundation of our nation and where we are today? checks and balances? the role of the federal government and states rights, wouldn't you like more local control of your government?)

who strongly believes in the declaration of independence ( north american union? and our sovreighnty in the future)

the bill of rights (patriot act and civil liberties? eqaulity, is affirmative action institutionalized racism?)

monetary policy (federal reserve and the illegal income tax on your labor? the federal reserve is not a public institution, they print our money  !)

these are the questions that concern me and i would encourage everyone to consider when making their choice at the polls and i would say ron paul represents me a red blooded midwestern american and the other candidates across the board do not! i just wish people would see more weight in their fellow every day joe american ideas, and thoughts than some dork on the evening news who has to follow a corporate agenda. i have found it is very hard to reason with people about this ron paul revolution when the mainstream media so effectivly manipulates public opinion

anyone else out there? i could use a little backup!

also i am not very impressed with jimmy carter my opinion of him used to be that he was a great diplomat and considered a peacemaker UNTILL I FOUND OUT he was a major role player in selling arms to indonesia (when he was president) which committed the worst act of genocide in east timor since the holocaust (at that time, im not sure of the human toll in rawanda as compared to the atrocities in east timor. i know the indonesian army killed something like 1 mill people over thirty years using us made arms) i do not think our citizens would stand for this if they were accuratly informed

oh yeah uke: mainstream uke: media

sorry if im sounding like a broken record im starting to feel like one


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

i would like to add that many of the issues other candidates are talking about are symptoms of our broken nation and they're not addressing the sickness, while ron paul is

illegal aliens

what do we consider torture and is it acceptable

does the president need to ask congress to go to war

these are all things i hear these candidates debating about and ron paul is the only one saying, open up the constitution and read it, many of the answers are in there and this great nation has been prosperous for 200 years and was built on that foundation

also the media wants to distract citizens with guns gays abortion what religion a candidate is. while i believe these topics are important i believe there are many more issues that can be very productive for this country if they're addressed


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> wouldn't you like more local control of your government?


I'm still thinking about that one. I have conflicting views. As I see most politicians as corruptible if they are not already it's a little scary, because the smaller the politician the less money it takes to corrupt. I'm sure I could afford a county commissioner, but not a U. S senator. 
The other thing I keep thinking about. Remember the billions of dollars in settlements with the tobacco industry. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the government say that those funds would offset medical costs caused by the tobacco industry. Someone should have told them that back here in North Dakota. They spent it like drunken sailors. I think a large portion went to fund the channel at Devils Lake. A lake that is flooding because farmers are draining into it. When they are building ***** around Devils Lake to save it the farmers upstream are still draining. I guess they think it is landowner rights to dump on everyone else. So that's where the money for health care went in North Dakota. To mitigate for landowner rights, and to heck with everyone else. So now Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks can flood instead of Devils Lake.

Local control here in North Dakota is out of control.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

To continue a little bit more with the hijack :lol: smokers are addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes and politicians are addicted to the tax money in cigarettes. Both are a hazard to our health.

On the topic, I actually like a lot of Ron Pauls ideas. I consider myself a Constitutionalist and I think there are other people here such as Plainsman that are also Constitutionalist as well as others. But it is a two edged sword that must be applied with forethought to todays world as we now live in. Where I see Ron Pauls failings is he wants to apply those ideas in a manner that only fits the days in which they were penned to paper and not of todays world. I don't want to go back to the day of musket balls and wooden teeth in a world that operates with nuclear power and silicon injections. In my opinion a true strict Constitutionlist accepts the premise that change must be gradual.

The mess we are in today didn't happen over night and can't be repaired over night. President Bush understood this when he set the stage for the war against Islamic extremist. How many times has he said this will be a fight for generations to come. Unfortunately the people of this country can't grasp that meaning. For the first time in my life I'm still on the fence at this stage as to who I want as a President. I don't like that position


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

sorry about the direction im going with this, cause we could go on forever but i felt it necassary to be clear on my opinion here

accepting prepetual war to me is not acceptable

the idea that preemptive war is now accepted, even embraced in our country to me is wrong. weve already put a target on iran, the media just made its big move in october when they interviewed iran's president, and covered his speech at columbia. i call those the two minute hate drills.

you can say what you want but the terrorist war is a result of 9/11 and iraq was not hiding osama bin laden and i agree completely with ron paul's stance on our foreign policy and the iraq war (much of my stance is based on the cost/toll of this war to our nation, and my disgust in the millitary industrial complex, and not the bush lied thousands died crap, although i do believe there was a massive campaign to decieve the citizens) . i believe we allowed our country to act out like a pi$$ed off teenager. yes we should have retaliated for 9/11 how about challenging saudi arabia, pakistan, i understand we overthrew the taliban in afgahnistan.

but

like ive said before bush is a cfr republican just like clinton is a cfr democrat, it was clintons policy to remove saddam bush carried out that policy do you guys not see that these people have a very similar agenda? under both parties our government just gets bigger and bigger and gets more power over, instead of from, the people. im sure you guys have heard about the expenses of our federal govt. and it's expotential growth in the last decade, yet the value of our dollar is going down, how low will it go? !!!!please!!!! watch the documentary, America Freedom To Facism. these problems are all interrelated and i believe this video gets to the core of the problems. ill send it to you, e mail me [email protected], or look it up on net flix!!!

peel the onion

google ron paul empower yourself

8) no apologies, no regrets 8)


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I like your attitude swampbuck, but I find it hard to believe that those contributions set a record. Heck the Chinese marched into the White House with grocery bags full of more money than that for Bill Clinton didn't they?


 ya praobly, and they're doin it now for bush so he can finance these wars and the figures are billions every day!!!!!!!!!! there's the similarities im talkin about!! and the answers are right out in the open you just have to look hard to find truth among all the garbage thank you plainsman.  :wink:

we're being illegally taxed they're sqaundering the riches of this nation in a prepetual war. we faced down hitler and his allys in 4 years, you can't bomb a word, terrorist, when you can't define what it is!! and they want it to be as vague as possible to propel the fear and uncertainty that fuels these wars someday the bills will come due and it will cost us more than material riches. we've already started paying look at the state of our country and this two party system, illusion democracy !!crap!! it's getting "worser, faster"

:******: stand up :******: don't elect the less bad person elect the best person


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

GO SWAMPBUCK!!!!!

MAN YOU'RE DOING GREAT!!!!

I'm with you a 100000000000000000000%
keep up the good work!

all the rest of you are putting up great posts too, keep it going, there is nothing better than debate to get everyone thinking!

Merry Christmas to all!!!!
Matt


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Doesn't matter whether you, I or anyone else accepts perpetual war or not. This started 1500 years ago and has just now reached our shores. You do have a alternative though, just succumb to it.

As to preemptive war now being accepted I think you are wrong. The US has never made a preemptive strike in its history and has not adopted that strategy. Under Article 51 if the UN charter a country has the inherent right of self-defense against armed attack, permitting defensive actions until the Security Council addresses the matter, and requires that such a defensive use of force be reported to the Security Council. The rule does not actually require an attack to be imminent to act, but rather permits defensive measures to be taken before one passes a point in time when it is too late to prevent catastrophe. The whole world watched as warning after warning was issued to Hussein with many months going by as forces were put in place. Neither the Security Council of the UN or Hussein moved to prevent the invasion even after congress gave approval for the use of force. Doesn't really sound preemptive to me.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm telling you up front I'm NOT getting into this, but as an innocent bystander I have a couple points I'd like to see discussed...

Did Hitler ever attack us? Couldn't our attacks on Germany be considered "preemptive"?

I was just "discussing" a similar topic yesterday with a gentleman from the Vietnam era and he will argue vehemently that our involvement in Vietnam was preemptive.

So if nothing else, I hope to learn at the end of this if the definition is the same, or if it's different depending on which party was in power when the decision was made? :wink:

So you guys have your fun.....I'll just sit back, watch and learn!


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

ok i see some of you guys probably strongly disagree with me on the iraq war and war on terrorism i respect that i won't try to change your minds but i have been clear on my stance so i think it would me more productive for us to move on, i have a question.

does ron pauls stance on that subject turn you off to him completely, or have you heard things from him that appeal to you?


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Csquared said:


> I'm telling you up front I'm NOT getting into this, but as an innocent bystander I have a couple points I'd like to see discussed...
> 
> Did Hitler ever attack us? Couldn't our attacks on Germany be considered "preemptive"?
> 
> ...


the point i was trying to make is that the two party system monopolizes our govt. and anyone with beleifs that threatens their share of power is pushed out of the public forum, with the help of the mainstream media. i also beleive that the parties differ very little there is a lot of talk and not a lot of actions to back up the cheks their mouths are writing. i encourage everyone to not think in terms of two parties but rather who represents your values best this whole idea of using your vote to keep the less bad person out is enabling the demise of our nation. its up to us to take back our country.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

cwoparson said:


> Doesn't matter whether you, I or anyone else accepts perpetual war or not. This started 1500 years ago and has just now reached our shores. You do have a alternative though, just succumb to it.
> 
> As to preemptive war now being accepted I think you are wrong. The US has never made a preemptive strike in its history and has not adopted that strategy. Under Article 51 if the UN charter a country has the inherent right of self-defense against armed attack, permitting defensive actions until the Security Council addresses the matter, and requires that such a defensive use of force be reported to the Security Council. The rule does not actually require an attack to be imminent to act, but rather permits defensive measures to be taken before one passes a point in time when it is too late to prevent catastrophe. The whole world watched as warning after warning was issued to Hussein with many months going by as forces were put in place. Neither the Security Council of the UN or Hussein moved to prevent the invasion even after congress gave approval for the use of force. Doesn't really sound preemptive to me.


there is too much at stake for me to "just fall in line" i think there are a lot of people out there who share my feelings but they're bullied out of the public exchange of ideas. that is what is so exciting about the ron paul revolution, people are starting to catch on and they're not going to take it. the more you question bullies the louder they yell but i will not _succumb_ to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8) i would rather you guys join me in taking our country back


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> does ron pauls stance on that subject turn you off to him completely, or have you heard things from him that appeal to you?


I don't pay much attention to him. From what you tell me I think he has some very good points that I agree with him on. Especially the illegal aliens where everyone else falls on their face. As a matter of fact I am sort of giving up on Huckabee because of his stand on illegal aliens.

Your right about Ron Paul's attitude towards the war. I feel so strongly about why we are there and finishing the job that I don't consider anything else the man has to say.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

swampbuck ... I presume you noticed (on the Iraq thread) that I commented to you about your questioin to me and asked you a fairly specific question ...

I can't tell if you are avoiding my response to the question posed to me

or if you are simply avoiding a discussion you started with me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> i encourage everyone to not think in terms of two parties but rather who represents your values best this whole idea of using your vote to keep the less bad person out is enabling the demise of our nation. its up to us to take back our country.


This is a little confusing to me. If you really believe what you said in the quote then please explain why Ron Paul chooses to participate in a a two party system instead of as a Independent, Libertarian, Green Party or what ever. Ron Paul which I assume is part of the "us" seems to have been deeply entrenched in the two party system for a long time now. You can take the easy way out if you wish and use the reason I gave in another post which I believe to be accurate, but I'd like to here your explanation.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

"some men change their principles to suit their party" ron paul is loyal to his principles. he has traditional conservative values and has not adopted the neo con doctrine (oops is neo con a swear word?) ron paul is a smart man, when he ran as a libertarian he did not do well, he learned that if he was to get the suppourt needed to win the presidency he would have to participate in this two party system to get exposure. in one of the debates he said the republican party has lost their way and he is more of a republican than anyone else running you can check out his voting record for the meat and potatoes to that statement.

the system is set in such a sad way that you have to be in the major parties to even get on the ballots read ralph nader's book The Good Fight

i have a family christmas now so ill return soon


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> " when he ran as a libertarian he did not do well, he learned that if he was to get the suppourt needed to win the presidency he would have to participate in this two party system to get exposure. he is more of a republican than anyone else running you can check out his voting record


I can easily agree he may well be the most conservative of the bunch of Republicans.

However he has two real big problems ...

First problem is with me, he is not appearing to me to be a guy who will keep us safe in the World we live in.

Second problem is with the American People (and on this front both he and I have the same problem with the Amercian People) ... He is simply unelectible ... BECAUSE:

Since the floodgates of Socialism were opened by that guy in the wheelchair back in the 1940s ... the American people are Proving on an ever increasing scale that Benjiman Franklin was 100% correct in his assesment 230 years ago .........

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Oh and might I mention ... Franklin Pierce

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." 
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

Or ... Grover Cleveland

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

Point being ... the American People are the problem at this point, It's hard to blame the Polititians.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "We have seen the enemy, and he is us... !"


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

First what is wrong with strenght within our own borders, and neutrality?you sound like you need a war to feel safe wich makes absolutely no sense, it is a symptom of this nation's regression into a police state

second;
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. 
-- Benjamin Franklin

I'm wondering if you'll vote for ron paul or vote yourself more riches from the national treasures, it's like ive said before you have to become the change you want to see and if that means you have to raise some he!!, and do a little work then so be it, i'm up to the challenge, are you?

Like red green says; 
"Remember I'm pullin' for ya', we're all in this together."

those failed democracies before us did not have this tool called the internet wich makes information so accessable, and enriches the public exchange of ideas, and is generally effortless to use.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Cwo & others..
Saddam was issued warnings, BUT NEWSFLASH..He had NO WMDS!
We never declared war, but to enforce UN resolutions. 
If we want to start doing that, lets start with Israel, who leads the world in Violations at 69 vs Iraq's 14.

Israel did attack us, Unlike Iraq. Remember the USS LIBERTY? 
Longest Naval attack since Pearl Harbor. Our boys were burned alive while being Napalmed & Shot for over 2 hours by Israelis. John McCain's dad tried to cover it up, as did Israel, until Russia & the tapes proved otherwise. Was to be blamed on Egypt, provoking us into their war.

Saddam complied with UN inspectors, who requested more time. 
You recall Bush/Cheney said Case closed. "He's Got em". 
Well, he didnt & we've destroyed a nation. 
Theres a saying of: Blood does not wash easy.
They will remember this 200 years from now.

Get out of the UN.
No, Germany Never attacked us. Hitler was no threat to the USA imo but a threat to Communism. 
General Patton called WW2 a Defeat & Wanted to RE ARM Germany to invade Russia, where 50 Million Christians were killed by the Bolsheviks & Reds.
Russia got Poland & Half of Europe, we still have bases in Germany. 
They are still paying reparations. Yet, it was International Judea that declared war On Germany in 1933. I have the newslink in London Times. It was also the Bromberg Massacre, where Poles slaughtered 5500 innocent Germans. Hitler invaded Poland the next day.

WW2 about 2 things..
1. Creation of a UN
2. Creation of Israel

WW1 gave us the League of Nations which wasnt enough to create either of these 2 entities & why WW2 came about.
2 Million German POWS Died under Allied care. 
War crimes. Starvation & Exposure.
Dresden & Hamburg carpet bombing on civilian targets..more innocents died there than Hiroshima. General Patton vehemently protested.

We have OPEN BORDERS, there really is no war on terror. 
We give up our rights-via Patriot & MCA acts. We are losing freedoms, not gaining. In this case, theyve already won. The Police state has arrived..
North American Union planned through Nafta, Mexican Trucks are here. All we need is a currency. Planned for decades..


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

swampbuck

In my opinion you do not understand the problem we have with Isalm.

And it goes back the the question I posed to you in the Iraq thread which you seem to conveniently ignored until today.

Did you read the previous post authored by Larry Abraham??

If you are willing to ignore the threat posed by Fundamentalist Islam, feel free to do so. Since the 7th century the threat and damage Islam is willing to do to the remainder of the world is there in the annals of history.

Your desire to somehow take what I said and stand it on it's head is evidence of your lack of understanding of the threat.

The bottom line for the remainder of the World is Islam cares not if we are at war with them, lack of resistence will simply make the job easier for them ... The goal of Islam is World Wide Theocratic Rule. All control emminating from the Caliphite which will be established very soon after control of the Middle East aquired.

I happen to agree with GWB in that establishing Freedom and Democracy (secular rule) in the Region is our best bet at keeping Fundamentalist Islam in check.

I can say ... as long as Ron Paul and his followers are prepared to ignore that fact ... I can only hope and trust he does not win the nomination.

You can certainly free to differ with my opinon about the Islamic Threat.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

BS. Youre ignorant of Islam. There are 2 million muslims, there are 15-20 Million Illegals & 3k more very day, with Amnesty-150 Million.

"They" said the same thing about Nam. "They'll follow us home, rape our women, et our children."

Its Not Islamofascism Im worried about personally, its Ziofascism or JudeoFascism

Its not muslims who have destroyed this nation, ripped Christianity & God from school & Square.
Its Not muslims mocking christianity, marriage & family
Its Not muslims who push abortion, pornography or filth on our TVs
Its Not muslims pushing for OPEN Borders, that was done in 1965-Hart Celler Immigration Act by Emmanual "Manny" Celler, aLiberal "NY" typ senator.
I can go one but Ill stop. You get the point. 
Joe McCarthy was right all along.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

uglyman i don't believe there are really only 2 mill. muslims what is your source?

decoy dummy, i have read some of this _demogauge_ material, and i choose to take it with a grain of salt, as you should with most _radical_ material


----------

