arnold exposed! learn all about your future (if not your next) president!

http://www.arnoldexposed.com/

a bottomless pit of evil.

and you'll watch all of the cowering little weenie 'republicans' who are socialists and tyranny lovers and don't realize it vote for arnold, when he's run against hilary.

-shrugs- He's for the legalization of marijuana. I suppose it's an issue of your moral values. Even if he does dream of being a dictator like Hitler, us voting for him won't give him that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Encatuse

-shrugs- He's for the legalization of marijuana. I suppose it's an issue of your moral values. Even if he does dream of being a dictator like Hitler, us voting for him won't give him that option.

---

So you'd vote for him purely on the cannabis issue alone :confused:

He would be a better canidate than Hilary. BTW on the Hiliary issue I think that the human mind just isnt ready to accept a female as president. I think if Hilary did run she would probaly just be wasting the Democratic spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeGuy

He would be a better canidate than Hilary. BTW on the Hiliary issue I think that the human mind just isnt ready to accept a female as president. I think if Hilary did run she would probaly just be wasting the Democratic spot.

---

The human mind can accept a female prez. The american mind is a different story. This may be news to you, but women lead countries all over the world. That place "out there", the rest world outside of america? Never mind, you are from texas

thatâ??s something youâ??d expect a person from texas to say. Doesnâ??t Texas have the lowest avg. IQ in the US? So please, anybody from texas, dont say anything, you give the rest of us smart americans a bad impression to the world! As for republicans, they are all sexist, homophobic, retarded bastards that dont give a fuck about anybody else. If it wasnt for the democrats, America would have been bombed to hell already, dont deny it, you know its true. Hilary Clinton is a far better candidate for presidency than George W Bush, and she deserves to be the first female president. Hopefully America will change for the better, or should I say, hopefully americans will get smarter. If the rate of republican majority in office continues to rise, who knows where America will stand in the next ten years, which is something everyone should fear.

Lets just hope the world will end by then.

Isn't he making a movie while hes in office? thats what i heard.

Until we break free of the tyranny of a 2 party government it really doesnt matter who gets voted into what office, as they still control who we can vote for with ease...

Vote Libertarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buck268

Until we break free of the tyranny of a 2 party government it really doesnt matter who gets voted into what office, as they still control who we can vote for with ease...

Vote Libertarian.

---

Buck's right. 2-party-systems stink to high heaven (I must be really stoned to say 'stinks to high heaven') as the 2 parties eventually get more and more alike. Pretty soon it makes absolutely no difference which party is in power.

But I don't like LIbertarians :D

green party all the way. but common arnold is one of the best the republicans have to offer.

i wouldn't even call him a republican...there's nothing 'conservative' about him really...

it doesn't matter though. voting for president is pointless, it's all staged, and has been since kennedy got his head blown off...

the real key areas are at the local and state levels. getting people elected, whether democrat or republican or any other party, who will uphold the bill of rights and constitution is what we need, who will resist the federal takeover and martial law when the time comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

i wouldn't even call him a republican...there's nothing 'conservative' about him really...

---

fiscally hes conservative, but socialy hes liberal. Also he was GIVEN TIME TO SPEAK AT THE republican national convention so that makes him republican in my book. Why wuld he fake being republican anyway he could have won the govenership in cali if he were an independent or even a democtat.

also hes one of the only republican poloticians i can stomach

He can't run, he's from Austria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedater18

He can't run, he's from Austria.

---

its a hypothetical question.
also there is a push to change the law that you have to be born in this country to run for president.

Quote:

---

its a hypothetical question.
also there is a push to change the law that you have to be born in this country to run for president.

---

I know that. They aren't going to change the law, so no worries :-D

they sure are going to try.

Arnie speaks even worse english than bush, and thats a statement. Pisshead, you should read the book It can't happen here by Sinclair Lewis. It's about how fragile democracy is, how facism could grip America, and what would have happened if America took the side of the Nazis in World War Two. You'll love it.

we aren't a democracy first of all. and it's the socialism that fuels the fascism that's destroying the country. the left sees all the corruption on the right, and vice versa, but neither can see it on their own side. they both accept the same policies offered by loyal opposition. the socialism creates the need for fascism, and you get it both ways, because in the end, it's just tyranny, not liberal or conservative tyranny, basic dictatorship. the left/right is the big divide, then they conquer.

and there were plans in the 30's to take the side of the nazis...documents were recently declassified and extensively covered by former presidential candidate who won in a primary in NH i think it was, john buchanan.

the interview is online somewhere i think. i have an interview with him from the protest at the RNC this past september talking about how the US dealt with the nazis prior to the holocaust and during, and after. but that's on my hard drive.

but search google for john buchanan london guardian, it should show up.

and i will look into that book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

we aren't a democracy first of all. and it's the socialism that fuels the fascism that's destroying the country.

\

---

i say itz the greed and lust of materialism which is a symptom of un-checked capitalism that is destroying this country. I dont see that socialism leads facism, i see the opposite i see socialism in its true form is meant to unite and find the things in common which is the polar opposite of facism which is the belief in tthe superiority of one group of people. What leads to facism is ultra-patriotism and the practice of labeling legitimit criticizing of ones country as un-patriotic. I see the republican party as becoming very facist esp. after it merged with the moral majority back in the eighties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sensiskunk

thatâ??s something youâ??d expect a person from texas to say. Doesnâ??t Texas have the lowest avg. IQ in the US? So please, anybody from texas, dont say anything, you give the rest of us smart americans a bad impression to the world! As for republicans, they are all sexist, homophobic, retarded bastards that dont give a fuck about anybody else. If it wasnt for the democrats, America would have been bombed to hell already, dont deny it, you know its true. Hilary Clinton is a far better candidate for presidency than George W Bush, and she deserves to be the first female president. Hopefully America will change for the better, or should I say, hopefully americans will get smarter. If the rate of republican majority in office continues to rise, who knows where America will stand in the next ten years, which is something everyone should fear.

---

That sounds like alot of pretentious BS to me... One thing is for sure, My IQ is higher than yours and I am only a sophmore in high school.

yeah, he says everyone from texas has a low IQ, but then goes on to say that he'd vote for hilary clinton for president.

i'd vote for the devil before i voted for that evil, anti-american socalist, world government loving bitch, who coincidentally loves some of bush's big government tyranny policies.

PH ,when you talk about socialism what excatly do you mean because when i think of socialism i think of Sweden, Norway. Denmark . france is kind of socialist and so is Holland. they are all great countries so what do you mean by that.(just asking)in fact Id LOVE to live in Amsterdam!!over 400 pot cafes ! now thats tokin`!!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore29.htm

if i'm forced to pay for other people, it's not really freedom. i'd rather have our constitutional republic back than become a socialist country.

i dont mind helping others (to get back on their feet) i feelwe need somekind of safety net. most people are just one big sickness-or layoff from bankruptcy.i think it would be nice if every american had health insurance. canada is kind of socialist too and their fine,nice country up there.

i'd still rather be a constitutional republic...

"constitutional republic"

Let's talk about that a little PH. Where exactly does a constitutional republic end up? What does history tell us about where constitutional republic's will take a country?

Toker

im not saying become socialist in the way you believe it is i just mean that poor people shoulnt have the burden of paying higher taxes thatn the rich do. that is not done in other countries. :Freedom is education, the more you know the more you question,to find out more." the "dumming down of America" is a bad thing.young people should be able to go to college whether they are rich or poorand i cant stress enough about health insurance i think these are basic needs in a civilized society

history shows evil people will takeover whatever form of government. rome was a republic too. germany was a republic too.

that doesn't mean republics are bad.

it's not the fault of the constitutional republic, it's the fault of the people for not watching government like a hawk like we were warned around the time of the revolution, and allowing them to take it over in the name of crises like the war on the drugs on the war on terror.

oh, but please indulge us all and tell us why constitutional republics and the bill of rights is actually bad...

Italy and germany are now a lot more progressive than we are.Rome was a republic for a long time before it became an empire. i think it only took 10-15 years for germany to become fascist bill of rights and connstitution VERY important

Socialism is good and not "anti american" thats moronic, but what i expect from someone who thinks bush is a closet satanist. All civilised nations are socialist, the american way is mean spirited, you people really want poor folks to not be able to see a doctor?
Arnold is doing a good job so far, california is the best place in america to be a stoner now. Fiscal conservative and social policy liberal, thats a great combo. He is pro stem cell research, and fuck any anti choice texans like pisshead or torag, i hate those assholes anway.
I like hillary too

that's because you're a product of government training camps. you're a good global citizen now, and have been dumbed down.

you've probably never even read the constitution, in its entirety.

and i hope you enjoy socialism, because you're about to pay out the ass for it.

and you should check out hilary's voting record. she likes george bush's big government tyranny policies more than you realize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moomoo

im not saying become socialist in the way you believe it is i just mean that poor people shoulnt have the burden of paying higher taxes thatn the rich do. that is not done in other countries. :Freedom is education, the more you know the more you question,to find out more." the "dumming down of America" is a bad thing.young people should be able to go to college whether they are rich or poorand i cant stress enough about health insurance i think these are basic needs in a civilized society

---

There is always going to be rich and poor people. Socialism means more goverenment control of the people, not less poor people. Actualy, if we pull a PH and look at history, we see that socialism actualy creates more poor people then it helps. If the goverenment is what produces tyranny, then how is more government a good thing? It's not. Freedom is way more importent then some money. If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Freedom every time.

In your opinion, is the VERY importent constitution the item that gives the government the power to force? Do you agree that our government is a tyrannical government?

Toker

Antifederalist No.1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete examination. Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them. Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Let all act understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry. The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR '0@' INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Library/antif...st/Default.htm

Where would you have been standing way back when the constitution was being thought up and drafted PH? Would you have been for it, or against it??? Don't run off and hide from this, it's just a simple question.

Toker

Say PH, what does the all seeing eye mean? What does it stand for in the masons book?

Toker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libertarian Toker

There is always going to be rich and poor people. Socialism means more goverenment control of the people, not less poor people. Actualy, if we pull a PH and look at history, we see that socialism actualy creates more poor people then it helps. If the goverenment is what produces tyranny, then how is more government a good thing? It's not. Freedom is way more importent then some money. If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Freedom every time.

In your opinion, is the VERY importent constitution the item that gives the government the power to force? Do you agree that our government is a tyrannical government?

Toker

Antifederalist No.1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete examination. Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them. Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Let all act understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry. The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR '0@' INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Library/antif...st/Default.htm

---

i would choose for freedom over gov`mt too. in fact if i could REALLY choose, i think anarchists have it right. anarchy is really the opposite of the anarchy thst so0ciety wants you to believe, how ever , we are stuck with government. theres no country on this planet that doesnt have one . lateley our govt, it seems to me is getting ,like i mentioned before , very creepy. Male prostitutes posing as reporters at the white house,? that of course is just the latest caper.

anarchy though...what's to stop your neighbor from stealing your car? or killing you?

government isn't the problem as much as the citizens' oversight of the government. we're supposed to watch government like a hawk, and not let it get out of control. we failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ismokedope

Socialism is good and not "anti american" thats moronic, but what i expect from someone who thinks bush is a closet satanist. All civilised nations are socialist, the american way is mean spirited, you people really want poor folks to not be able to see a doctor?
Arnold is doing a good job so far, california is the best place in america to be a stoner now. Fiscal conservative and social policy liberal, thats a great combo. He is pro stem cell research, and fuck any anti choice texans like pisshead or torag, i hate those assholes anway.
I like hillary too

---

i dont agree with you on Arnold but i think you are half right when you say americans are mean spirited america used to be the most generuos nation in the world,i see us becoming more mean spirited. people here are basiscally good some great give shirt off my back ,type but latley things have been changing yes you are right and i think bush is mean spirited and unfortunaltly reflects on rest of country. i think ,privatley we gave lots of money to tsamui relief but bush was a cheap bastard about it until he was embarrased into giving more i like hilary too. dont let Arnold fool you tho if you go on ph`s fav website and read about him you might be a little suprised. a friend of mine said that arnold said "when i get to america im going to marry a kennedy" i wish maria would divorce him. shes much too good for him and she looks awful anorexic anxiety??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

anarchy though...what's to stop your neighbor from stealing your car? or killing you?

government isn't the problem as much as the citizens' oversight of the government. we're supposed to watch government like a hawk, and not let it get out of control. we failed.

---

no! anarcists dont go aroud killing people and shit like that. they beleive in peace ,bartering,instead of money and they dont like govt either. in fact they kind of sound like Liberterians. i knew an anarcist way back dont remember all the dogma but the principles sounded pretty good

yeah, but sooner or later, you're going to have a group take over...and impose dictatorship.

it sounds nice, but i doubt it would actually be feasible.