-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
maybe it was al-qaeda then too, right??? applied digital solutions doesn't exist. i never said that was the purpose, you did and i don't agree, so you could turn it into a joke and then not have to even consider it, even when you see it happening in the real world.
if i thought for one second you were serious, i'd answer you. but i think disarming everyone and shooting looters, maybe everything that moves, is a good start. it also helps to not be prepared to move in instantly after the storm passed...going shopping and going to broadway, and taking a nap a day while on vacation definitely helped... (http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf)...or wait, no one had any clue... posse comitatus is overrated, and you gain rights by giving them up...did i include everything?
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
maybe it was al-qaeda then too, right??? applied digital solutions doesn't exist. i never said that was the purpose, you did and i don't agree, so you could turn it into a joke and then not have to even consider it, even when you see it happening in the real world.
if i thought for one second you were serious, i'd answer you. but i think disarming everyone and shooting looters, maybe everything that moves, is a good start. it also helps to not be prepared to move in instantly after the storm passed...going shopping and going to broadway, and taking a nap a day while on vacation definitely helped... (
http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf)...or wait, no one had any clue... posse comitatus is overrated, and you gain rights by giving them up...did i include everything?
I guess if it didn't get printed on pissplanet.com you don't know what to say! Thats a shame.....can you say BAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH lil' sheep?
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
wow, i didn't know alex jones controlled gov.louisiana.gov too??? he's mega powerful i guess...did alex jones make up posse comitatus too? and the constitution and bill of rights?
maybe alex jones wrote the federalist and anti-federalist papers too...maybe you should make a list of what he made up...so we all know.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
wow, i didn't know alex jones controlled gov.louisiana.gov too??? he's mega powerful i guess...did alex jones make up posse comitatus too? and the constitution and bill of rights?
maybe alex jones wrote the federalist and anti-federalist papers too...maybe you should make a list of what he made up...so we all know.
Nice spin.....I'll give ya a 9.6!
Think of your wildest dream pisshead...if you sat on Alex Jones head you could be a sheep spin cap!!!
BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Pisshead, Psycho, I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about or what you're arguing about.
Do you?
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
My being serious has nothing to do with your lack of a response and you know it. Basically your conspiracy websites have no solution other than bashing the govt. for sending in the troops so your at a loss. This is so typical of you conspiracy types. Your so concerned about what the govt shouldn't be doing but can't come up with any alternatives.
I've already stated that I think the gov't response to the situation in New Orleans is pathetic. But, again, that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the govt is in the right for sending in troops and disarming the gang bangers and thugs who are taking advantage of the tragedy to terrorize those who are weaker than them. Apparently you think they should be allowed to run free. Survival of the fittest, right?
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
wrong...why don't you visit the site to at least say that...
genius, check under the ACTIVIST section of the website...how about that for a start?
can you name your congressman? why don't you write letters...make them know you're aware of what they're up to...even if it might be *gasp* corruption...unless government corruption is an alex jones creation?
because i don't think the military should be there, i'm pro 'terrorist'...give me a fucking break...that makes as much as sense as you're either with us or against us...
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
Pisshead, Psycho, I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about or what you're arguing about.
Do you?
Oh there's no argument....just trying to help a brother pull his head out of his ass that's all. Sorry Ghost....I know your a sensitive guy!....from the lounge...ya know!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Haha.. from the lounge... Well, i've been trying to toughen up a bit, ya know? I've tried joining a few skirmishes in Politics, but I always end up confused as hell and wondering what's going on.. so i'll leave it to the professionals from now on! lol
Seriously though, what are you guys talking about? :p
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
he's trying to convince me the founders of this country were wrong thisi whole time...and that government exist because they care and love about me, and never use events to further their control and power, and never use propaganda and lie...they genuintely care about my safety and future. george bush cares, martial law is good, shutup and accept it.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
he's trying to convince me the founders of this country were wrong thisi whole time...and that government exist because they care and love about me, and never use events to further their control and power, and never use propaganda and lie...they genuintely care about my safety and future. george bush cares, martial law is good, shutup and accept it.
See what I have to contend with Ghost.....it's kinda like having a crack head child always paranoid and shit. Really breaks my heart!!! :(
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
have you ever read a history book? letters george washington wrote...the federalist or anti-federalist papers?
if you think i'm bad...that stuff will make you shit your pants...it would probably scare you the level of freedom they thought we should have, despite all else.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
pisshead, I have to admit that, in this situation, with civilians shooting the crap out of hospital workers and people actually trying to help, there's really no alternative to disarming anybody with a gun who shouldn't have one (in the effected areas, I mean).
But I do agree that there is more to government than the public see every day. Of course alot of the conspiracy theories are bullshit, but some of them are probably %100 true.... a government is only as good as the people in it, and not many people are good.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
have you ever read a history book? letters george washington wrote...the federalist or anti-federalist papers?
if you think i'm bad...that stuff will make you shit your pants...it would probably scare you the level of freedom they thought we should have, despite all else.
Why yes I have; and like I stated before. It was a different time and different circumstances. They didn't have plastic explosives, mindless kids packing pistols, nuclear threats, etc...
By the way, did George Washington tell his slaves of the freedoms he wanted for his country? :confused:
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
washington had slaves, therefore total federal takeover is alright...
The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):
I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.
11
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. ??Nothing is more certainly written,? said he, ??in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.?
12
There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:
I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].
15
Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.
16
Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.
17
Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] ?? Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right.
18
Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence.
19
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.
20
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king's perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.
22
A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed..
23
The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24
Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25
As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:
When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, ??If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.? Prince feelingly replied, ??Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.? This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master's heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot.
26
Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.
The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.
Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, ??Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,? 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.
While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:
Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,...courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty].
28
Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.
Slavery and the Constitution
The issue of slavery was considered at the Constitutional Convention. Though most delegates were opposed to slavery, they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They saw a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty (which was by no means guaranteed to survive). They did not agree to abolish slavery as some wanted to do, but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years. 30 No nation in Europe or elsewhere had agreed to such political action.
Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:
Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.
31
The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.
32
t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 33
Some today misinterpret the Constitutional provision of counting the slaves as three-fifths for purposes of representation as pro-slavery or black dehumanization. But it was a political compromise between the north and the south.. The three-fifths provision applied only to slaves and not free blacks, who voted and had the same rights as whites (and in some southern states this meant being able to own slaves). While the Southern states wanted to count the slaves in their population to determine the number of congressmen from their states, slavery opponents pushed to keep the Southern states from having more representatives, and hence more power in congress.
[i]The Constitution did provide that runaway slaves would be returned to their owners (We saw previously that returning runaway slaves is contrary to Biblical slave laws, unless these slaves were making restitution for a crime.) but the words slave and slavery were carefully avoided. ??Many of the framers did not want to blemish the Constitution with that shameful term.? The initial language of this clause was ??legally held to service or labor,? but this was deleted when it was objected that legally seemed to favor ??the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.? 34
While the Constitution did provide some protection for slavery, this document is not pro-slavery. It embraced the situation of all 13 states at that time, the Founders leaving most of the power to deal with this social evil in the hands of each state. Most saw that the principles of liberty contained in the Declaration could not support slavery and would eventually overthrow it.. As delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin put it:
Slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.
35
The View of Slavery Changes
Most of America's Founders thought slavery would gradually be abolished. Roger Sherman said that ??the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it.? 36 But it was not. Why?
- Succeeding generations did not have the character and worldview necessary to complete the task started by the Founders. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Each generation must take up the cause of liberty, which is the cause of God, and fight the battle. While the majority view of the Founders was that American slavery was a social evil that needed to be abolished, many in later generations attempted to justify slavery, often appealing to the Scriptures (though, I believe, in error at many points, as mentioned earlier).
- American slavery was not in alignment with Biblical slave laws and God's desire for liberty for all mankind. This inconsistency produced an institution that proved too difficult to gradually and peacefully abolish. Some Founders (like Henry and Jefferson) could not see how a peaceful resolution was possible and gave the ??necessary evil? argument. Henry said: ??As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.? 37
Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet he thought that once the slaves gained freedom, a peaceful coexistence of whites and blacks would be very difficult to maintain. Jefferson predicted that if the slaves were freed and lived in America, ??Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites' ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.? 38
This is why many worked (especially many from Virginia, like James Monroe and James Madison) to set up a country in Africa (Liberia) where the freed slaves could live. Some at this time did not see integration as possible, and apart from the power of God, history has shown it is not possible, as there have been and are many ethnic wars. The church must lead the way in race relations, showing all believers are brothers in Christ, and all men have a common Creator. - The invention of the cotton gin, which revived the economic benefit of slavery, also contributed to a shift in the thinking of many Americans. At the time of independence and the constitutional period most people viewed slavery as an evil that should and would be abolished. But by the 1830s, many people, including some Southern ministers, began to justify it. Some, like Calhoun, even said it was a positive thing. Others justified it by promoting the inequality of the races. Stephen Douglas argued that the Declaration only applied to whites, but Lincoln rejected that argument and sought to bring the nation back to the principles of the Declaration. In the end these principles prevailed.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
washington had slaves, therefore total federal takeover is alright...
"if you think i'm bad...that stuff will make you shit your pants...it would probably scare you the level of freedom they thought we should have, despite all else."
Your statement...not mine dude! It's been nice having this lil' chat. Now I must retreat to the Psycho Cave to check on the "children"! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
a government is only as good as the people in it, and not many people are good.
The only "good person" I've seen in government in the last 20 years was Monica Lewinski! Except for saving the dress shit that we won't get into....she didn't swallow either did she??? I guess I haven't seen any good government people! :mad:
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
GOD DAMN!!! You almost brought a tear to my eye!
My only problem with pissheads statements is that he is, no matter what, against disarming the bangers. I just can't understand that reasoning in this type of situation.
because that's how it starts...they start small by attacking the people youd be crazy to defend...
...the amber alert that gets us to call in and report suspicious activity...but we're rescuing lost children...forgetting that no kids were directly saved due to the amber alert...the police used their investigative powers without any tips...the tips they got only reinforced what they already had concluded...
...registering sex offenders for a big fbi database...forgetting that no sane man is going to run to the nearest registration office to put his name down...it's funny how they dont have the resources to register his name themselves BEFORE he leaves prison...it's going to work so well, we may as well put EVERY citizen in a big database to make it easier to check on them...
disarming looters that havnt even been confirmed as true...take guns away from those black sonsabitches...hey might as well clear texas while we're at it...
if i were in the superdome, i wouldnt be able to rely on the fucking non-existant national guard to protect my family...im going to use my buddies smith and wesson.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
because that's how it starts...they start small by attacking the people youd be crazy to defend...
They want to wipe out some gang bangers. Hell, I'll buy em' some bullets!
...the amber alert that gets us to call in and report suspicious activity...but we're rescuing lost children...forgetting that no kids were directly saved due to the amber alert...the police used their investigative powers without any tips...the tips they got only reinforced what they already had concluded...
Actually, I have read about a couple of kids that were rescued due to the Amber alert.
...registering sex offenders for a big fbi database...forgetting that no sane man is going to run to the nearest registration office to put his name down...it's funny how they dont have the resources to register his name themselves BEFORE he leaves prison...it's going to work so well, we may as well put EVERY citizen in a big database to make it easier to check on them...
I'd register them.....yah.....it would be in a morgue registry!
disarming looters that havnt even been confirmed as true...take guns away from those black sonsabitches...hey might as well clear texas while we're at it...
Don't just take the black sonsabitches guns! Take the white sonsabitches, mexican sonsabitches...ALL the sonsabitches that want to pop shots right now!
if i were in the superdome, i wouldnt be able to rely on the fucking non-existant national guard to protect my family...im going to use my buddies smith and wesson.
AMEN to that one!!! What uncle sam can't do, that needs to be done, should be taken care of! Hell, I'm gonna fire one up for ya right now!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fengzi
The issue isn't about the govt's response. I think everyone (well...maybe not Amsterdam) agrees that the govt's response to the tragedy has been incredibly poor. Hell, that's an understatment. It's been a fucking joke and just goes to show how poor a leader GW really is.
Come on Nich, you've been around long enough to know this isn't what Pisshead was pointing out. Pisshead was implying that TROOPS were sent in to put down HELPLESS cistizens. Pisshead has a problem ANY time ANY govt employee takes ANY action angainst ANYONE. If the National Guard had gone in immediately he would have had a problem. No matter what the govt's response he would have had a problem with the National Guard going in. Then he would come up with some crazy ass theory about our govt planning on asking Chinese troops to come in to police New Orleans. It's just typical Pisshead shit.
I know I have a better life than 2/3's of those people. I also work my ass off for it but that's not the point. Not everyone in New Orleans is looting, raping, and acting like a fucking animal. The people in question are not reacting to a tragic situation, they are taking advantage of it and that shouldn't be tolerated. And they don't need a tragedy, they're the same ones who go looting when their favorite basketball team loses, or wins.
Oh yeah, the word is empathize
thanks for the "spellling" correction. :D
the troops were sent to put down helpless citizens...ten-year olds getting frisked after baking in the sun for five days ring a bell...it's all a sham...just uncle sams way of letting you know that only he can protect you and you better not fuck around...metal detectors must be awful hard to come by nowadays...what would you think if you were ten and the "soldier mens" thattre supposed to be saving you treat you just like the crackhead down the street. psychological conditioning my friend. "point and case" just like that fucktard makor would say. (what a fucking moron)
i dont think pisshead is full of shit. he brings up valid points you should think about. whats the point in being against marshall law if you dont even look for the signs of it creeping up on you. with all due respect, youd be crazy to think bush is idiotic enough to just declare it out of nowhere.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Oh there's no argument....just trying to help a brother pull his head out of his ass that's all. Sorry Ghost....I know your a sensitive guy!....from the lounge...ya know!! :D
psycho...youre not helping
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
shhhh dont want to wake up the B*sh lovers, they cant tell what the truth is anymore Dont hurt me B*sh people and no name calling thats just mean man....
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by eg420ne
shhhh dont want to wake up the B*sh lovers
Now lets take a serious look at this statement!
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM(I was looking)HHMMMMMMMMMMM(looked again)
Well, I love Bush! Yes I do!! I love it shaved, I love it trimmed, even that Chubaka look kind of gets me from time to time.
Do I love George Bush. HELL NO! He's a fuckin politician. No more crooked or honest than the rest!
But I do LOVE Bush!!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
psycho...youre not helping
DAMN IT!!!! You didn't tell me I was suppose to be helping!!! :D
BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
DAMN IT!!!! You didn't tell me I was suppose to be helping!!! :D
BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :D
thats our psycho :rolleyes:
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
lol that ws funny thats a good come back
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
that was good one i didnt see that one coming...psycho
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by eg420ne
that was good one i didnt see that one coming...psycho
SHE WAS COMING!!!!!??????? DAMN I'M GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!! :D
Didn't even have an after taste??
BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! :D
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
wrong...why don't you visit the site to at least say that......
Sorry, I tried but your little link doesn't work
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
genius, check under the ACTIVIST section of the website...how about that for a start?......
Can you at leat point me to a particluar thread, or am I suppesed to read through hundreds of threads of mostly BS? What am I even looking for? Your solution to the problems in New Orleans, more of your conspiracy theories, proof that the govt is working with aliens to abduct us all and implant chips after they've done their anal probes? What??
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
can you name your congressman? why don't you write letters...make them know you're aware of what they're up to...even if it might be *gasp* corruption...unless government corruption is an alex jones creation??......
Mike Honda. Write letters telling them I know what they are up to? What exactly are they up to? If I tell them everything I see on all of your recommended websites they'll just think I'm a fuckin nut case. At the very least it might make them suspicious of me and then they'll come and implant a chip in me in the middle of the night :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
because i don't think the military should be there, i'm pro 'terrorist'...give me a fucking break...that makes as much as sense as you're either with us or against us...
Who said you're pro terrorist? I said the thugs are terrorizing weaker, innocent, civilians. Terrorize is a big word with more than one meaning. It doesn't make them a terrorists and I never said you were supporting them.
I still haven't seen any alternative solution from you Pisshead. Could it be you don't have one? If you do, let me know. If it's in another post let me know which, don't tell me to go look for a needle in a haystack. I want to know. What is your solution Pisshead?
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
thanks for the "spellling" correction. :D
the troops were sent to put down helpless citizens...ten-year olds getting frisked after baking in the sun for five days ring a bell...it's all a sham...just uncle sams way of letting you know that only he can protect you and you better not fuck around...metal detectors must be awful hard to come by nowadays...what would you think if you were ten and the "soldier mens" thattre supposed to be saving you treat you just like the crackhead down the street. psychological conditioning my friend. "point and case" just like that fucktard makor would say. (what a fucking moron)
i dont think pisshead is full of shit. he brings up valid points you should think about. whats the point in being against marshall law if you dont even look for the signs of it creeping up on you. with all due respect, youd be crazy to think bush is idiotic enough to just declare it out of nowhere.
Well, I still think Pisshead is full of shit. Not just because of this post but because of all the other wacked out conspiracy theory shit he posts. I do see your point of view, however, and it is concerning that the troops are frisking little kids that have been suffering. Just as concerning to me, however, is what might have brought them to this. I don't think they are just doing for the hell of it. There must be a reason.
It is well known that gangbangers will use little kids to hold drugs, guns, etc. These little kids go along with it because they idolize the bigger gangbangers. It's not hard to imagine that, in this case, thugs being rescued would know they'd be searched so they'd hand off their guns to the little ones for safe keeping. All it is gong to take is the troops finding one little kid with a gun and then the bad apple spoils the bunch.
Bottom line is that none of us are there personally so we don't really know what is going on. It's pretty hard to make any kind of judgement based on what we hear from the sensationalistic media. For all we know there might have been one or two cases of this happening out of a hundred but our media will lock onto it like a pit-bull on a 5 year old. I just think it is wrong to automatically start to criticize anytime the national guard, police, govt, etc does ANYTHING.
-
Troops begin combat operations in New Orleans to fight 'insurgents'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fengzi
Well, I still think Pisshead is full of shit. Not just because of this post but because of all the other wacked out conspiracy theory shit he posts. I do see your point of view, however, and it is concerning that the troops are frisking little kids that have been suffering. Just as concerning to me, however, is what might have brought them to this. I don't think they are just doing for the hell of it. There must be a reason.
It is well known that gangbangers will use little kids to hold drugs, guns, etc. These little kids go along with it because they idolize the bigger gangbangers. It's not hard to imagine that, in this case, thugs being rescued would know they'd be searched so they'd hand off their guns to the little ones for safe keeping. All it is gong to take is the troops finding one little kid with a gun and then the bad apple spoils the bunch.
Bottom line is that none of us are there personally so we don't really know what is going on. It's pretty hard to make any kind of judgement based on what we hear from the sensationalistic media. For all we know there might have been one or two cases of this happening out of a hundred but our media will lock onto it like a pit-bull on a 5 year old. I just think it is wrong to automatically start to criticize anytime the national guard, police, govt, etc does ANYTHING.
thats what we're trying to get across...the whole point of them doing it is to intimidate.
im not being unreasonable...but why couldnt they use metal detecting wands? they have plastic knives and bullets now? they dont carry metal detectors in their sophisticated tech packs? hell, they couldve even gotten a airport style detector and im sure they wouldve shambled through a lot faster. it takes about thirty seconds to properly frisk someone.
and youre point about the guard//people have EVERU right to criticise the ones in charge of them. they did nothing for FOUR days.
