Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Re: Americans having fun with camels vs Muslims having fun with camels

A new captain takes over a platoon in the French Foreign Legion, in
Algiers, and asks his sargent how the men handle the lack of women.

Sarg: Thats what that camel out there is for.

Captain: Whoa! Really?

Sarge: Yes sir.

Well, time goes by and the Captain is really losing it, so he says,
what the hell.

Captain: Hey Sarge, I screwed the Camel last night, and you're right,
it wasn't half bad.

Sarge: You're hard core Cap. Usually the boys just ride him into
town and buy a hooker.

On Nov 22, 11:53 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  Americans
> having fun with camels vs Muslims having fun with
> camels<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/americans-having-fun-w...>by
> barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> Somewhere in Arizona: Somewhere in the Middle East:
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/americans-having-fun-w...>
>  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | November 22, 2011 at 12:47 AM | Categories: Just the
> Facts<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=44200>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-CDk
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/americans-having-fun-w...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/americans-having-fun-w...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/americans-having-fun-w...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: OWS are pro-illegal immigrant scum

more:

Occupy Oakland protesters seemed to be braced for just about anything
that could arise – except, evidently, the raging issues of immigration
and deportation.
Now those issues are on their radar on the heels of the arrest Monday
of a fellow protester, Francisco Ramos-Stierle, who apparently is in
the U.S. illegally.
The Mexican native, 36, was arrested during the police sweep of the
encampment outside City Hall, and is being detained because of a
federal immigration hold.
A group of Occupy Oakland protesters has rallied around his case,
while trying to learn about the complexities of immigration in the
process.
On Monday night, back at Frank Ogawa Plaza, where protesters had been
evicted 12 hours before, a small group of occupiers held an assembly
to discuss, among other cases, Ramos's detention.
The group discussion focused on how to bail out Ramos, who is known as
"Pancho," from jail. People on immigration holds typically cannot be
bailed out, his supporters learned.
One participant repeatedly pointed out his case is different than
those of other arrested protesters because he's an immigrant without
legal papers.
"But isn't Oakland a sanctuary city?" the moderator of the meeting
finally asked, apparently unaware of the Secure Communities, a federal
program under which local authorities run the names and fingerprints
of people arrested through a database to check their legal status.
Since 2010, Alameda County has agreed to collaborate with Secure
Communities.
Friends and supporters of Ramos held a rally outside a different jail,
in downtown Oakland, on Tuesday. A spokesperson for the jail explained
that the Alameda County Sheriff has no control over federal
immigration holds.
Still, by Tuesday, a "liberate Pancho Ramos" letter had been signed by
100 people, just two of them Latinos.
"Pancho's situation represents an important point of connection
between the aims of the Occupy Movement and the immigration questions
that have become singularly critical in the national dialogue," reads
a press release sent out by the California Immigration Policy Center.
In that sense, "Pancho" could serve the progressive causes he had
passionately embraced, as Latinos have not been strongly engaged by
the movement.
Suzy Hernández knows that well.
A day before police dismantled the Occupy Oakland encampment,
Hernández, an Oakland native born in Los Angeles, was there. At that
hour, around 4 p.m., she was the only Hispanic in Frank Ogawa Plaza,
in the city's downtown.
When she got requests from Spanish-language news outlets, she quipped:
"Looks like I'm the only one who the media can find to talk about
Latinos in Occupy Oakland."
In recent weeks, she said, she already had given interviews to the two
Spanish broadcasting stations in the U.S. Hernández contrasted the
Latino absence in Oakland with the situation in Los Angeles: "At
night, they play ranchero songs in the encampment of Occupy LA."
For his part, Ramos is no stranger to activism. In 2004, he got a
grant from the University of California Institute for Mexico and the
United States (UC MEXUS) to pursue a Ph.D. in astrophysics at UC
Berkeley. Four years later, he withdrew from the school in protest, he
said at that time, over the university's "involvement with the
production and manufacture of nuclear weapons."
Nowadays, Ramos is homeless.
"Friends host him and when they can't, he lives out in the woods,"
reads a letter that Samir Patel posted on Change.org, trying to draw
the attention of Rep. Barbara Lee to the case.
Ramos was arrested when Oakland police evicted – a second time –
protestors from the Occupy encampment.
One photo, showing him meditating while two police officers pick him
up from the ground, circulated widely in many news outlets.
Hernández said some of her Latino friends refuse to participate in the
Oakland Occupy movement because they feel they would be used by white
protesters, who, she said, usually direct the crowd.
José Sandoval, a long-time community activist in the Bay Area, said
that a lack of Latino political consciousness is the reason behind the
small numbers of Hispanic occupiers.
For María Jiménez, another supporter of Occupy Oakland, the reason for
the dearth of Latinos at the protest is, basically, that they are
afraid of being arrested.
Francisco Barradas is a freelance reporter in California. He can be
reached at paco@bici.us.
------
her Latino friends refuse to participate in the Oakland Occupy
movement because they feel they would be used by white protesters???

The animals are pairing off!!!


Read more:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/16/fellow-protesters-arrest-thrusts-occupy-oakland-protesters-into-unfamiliar/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1eRly8nKp

On Nov 22, 8:41 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you PlainOl!
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-a...
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>  KeithAtOccuyD C 11 17 2011 .jpg
> 315KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Criminal Past?

thanks for the upkeep

you guys rock!

On Nov 22, 8:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Bruce and Duncan,
>
> Just as a side note,  Bruce Majors is correct,  the web site Pak Stars is
> based in Indonesia, (we believe)  and we have no idea who Pak Stars is or
> managed by.  Bruce is correct, the Pak Stars site does mirror all of our
> posts, (as do several other web sites here in the United States, some of
> which we have control over)  but ironically, if we delete a post,  it's hit
> or miss whether the Pak Stars site follows suit.   Go figure.
>
> I will remove the post from our group,  Political Forum.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> KeithInTampa
> Co-Moderator
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes someone else posted it in a group which is where I found it
>
> > I think the pak stars blog is run by someone in Asia who simply reposts
> > everything circulated in a google group called political forum
>
> > On Monday, November 21, 2011,  <duncan.balsba...@thomsonreuters.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Bruce - The story you have posted "Obama May Have a Criminal Past" is
> > not authored by me, it appears to be some internet hoax to have it
> > attributed to me, could you please take down my name and my company's
> > association – otherwise Reuters lawyers will need to get involved. I did
> > some research and found that this article was first posted by blogger Rick
> > Perry April 1 2011 – thank you (PS do you know how I can get the same
> > message to Pak Starz blog? – thx)
> > >circulated in a groupm
>
> > > Duncan Balsbaugh
> > > Senior Market Analyst -Government Bonds/S&P Futures
>
> > > Thomson Reuters
>
> > > O (617) 856-2589
>
> > > duncan.balsba...@thomsonreuters.com
> > > thomsonreuters.com
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Criminal Past?

Good Morning Bruce and Duncan,
 
Just as a side note,  Bruce Majors is correct,  the web site Pak Stars is based in Indonesia, (we believe)  and we have no idea who Pak Stars is or managed by.  Bruce is correct, the Pak Stars site does mirror all of our posts, (as do several other web sites here in the United States, some of which we have control over)  but ironically, if we delete a post,  it's hit or miss whether the Pak Stars site follows suit.   Go figure. 
 
I will remove the post from our group,  Political Forum.
 
Respectfully,
 
 
KeithInTampa
Co-Moderator
 


 
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes someone else posted it in a group which is where I found it

I think the pak stars blog is run by someone in Asia who simply reposts everything circulated in a google group called political forum

On Monday, November 21, 2011,  <duncan.balsbaugh@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
> Bruce - The story you have posted "Obama May Have a Criminal Past" is not authored by me, it appears to be some internet hoax to have it attributed to me, could you please take down my name and my company's association – otherwise Reuters lawyers will need to get involved. I did some research and found that this article was first posted by blogger Rick Perry April 1 2011 – thank you (PS do you know how I can get the same message to Pak Starz blog? – thx)
>circulated in a groupm
>  
>
> Duncan Balsbaugh
> Senior Market Analyst -Government Bonds/S&P Futures
>
> Thomson Reuters
>
> O (617) 856-2589
>
> duncan.balsbaugh@thomsonreuters.com
> thomsonreuters.com
>
>  

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: OWS are pro-illegal immigrant scum

Thank you PlainOl! 
 


 
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-are-undocumented-putting-themselves-at-risk/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Scared and Unbalanced

Good Morning Studio,
 
Maybe you can share one of these "numerous polls" that "proves":  "FOX News viewers are the most uninformed bunch of people there are of any news organization"?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:44 PM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yep.
Fox News is pure evil in every regard.

Numerous polls have proven that Fox News viewers are the most
uninformed bunch of people there are of any news organization.
The higher ratings they enjoy just proves that most people are
entertained by Fox, but not enlightened by them.

They are the diet coke of news... tastes horrible, and you need twice
as much of it to be half as infomed.
That's why their on 24 hours a day so they can repeat the same lie
over as many times as possible.
Like the old saying goes; repeat a lie often and enough, and people
start believing it's the truth.
And you also have Fox News.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All

Good Morning PlainOl',
 
I'm rushed for time, but I wanted to address your last post.
 
First, let's scrutinize Lazarowitz's article a little more in depth:  
 
During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich implied that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the Declaration of Independence: "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
 
=====
 
 "Lazarowitz", ("Hockey" herein) frames the  premise of his article with this notion.  Hockey avoids  legitimate slander litigation by utilizing the word, "Implied".  Nowhere in Hockey's propaganda did he choose to cite a reference, or quote Gingrich,  he only slings out this ridiculous ascertation. 
========
 
"Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that theres hould be a different set of laws for society when there is a"war" underway. But the truth is, war is an artificial concept used by collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts of aggression against others and get away with it."
 
=======
 
WTF? Again,  ditto.   Nothing from Hockey to support his ridiculous allegation that Gingrich somehow detests the Declaration of Independence or that Gingrich believes men are not created equally.  That Americans don't have unalienable God given rights.   In fact, just the opposite is true.  Moreover,  as we see below, Hockey's premise is partisan, and/or Hockey is literally an idiot. 
 
============
 
The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:
 
Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense),theft, fraud and trespass; or

Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of others' persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and the use of the State's armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign peoples.
 
By "all men," the Declaration refers to all of human kind created equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are inherent in all of us as human beings. The Declaration does not state that such rights apply only to Americans. And "unalienable" (or inalienable) means that such rights are not given to anyone by government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may not take such rights away.And the Founders were very clear on the idea of due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove its case against a suspect.
 
Hockey has now violated his own set of rules that he set forth above,  e.g.;  "Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense),theft, fraud and trespass".  
 
The truth is that Anwar al-Awlaki constantly called for the destruction of the United States, and war against the "evil United States":
 
 
 
 
 
The truth is that al-Awlaki wanted you, me, and every other American dead.  The truth is that it was the Obama Administration that called for al-Awlaki death,  and rightfully so.  We are at war, with fundamentalist Islam,  and despite Hockey's  (and your)  "Kum-Bay-Yah/I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing"  attitude,  an isolationist policy towards these dangerous assholes would mean the demise of our very way of life.  
 
The point being, is that Hockey failed to acknowledge the Obama Administration's killing of al-Awlaki.  Hockey failed to acknowledge that al Awlaki was trying to kill him,  or every other American, and had a hand in the 9/11 debacle,  the Fort Hood shooter and the asshole underwear bomber.   Hockey failed to mention that even the Nation-State of Yeman had called for al-Awlaki's capture, dead or alive:
 
 
 
Al-Awalaki was not entitled to a trial by jury.  Al Awalaki was not entitled to the protections of our United States Constitution, because al-Awalaki was a terrorist insurgent intent on destroying our very way of life, and was at war with you, me and our Nation.   Al-Awalaki was killed on the battlefield, as he should have been. 
 
Instead, the premise of Hockey's article is that Newt Gingrich somehow hates the Declaration of Indendence.......Can't you see it PlainOl'?   Every Moonbat, (e.g.; far left extremist wacko communists and socialists)  and every crackpot,  (e.g.;  every far right wacko conspiratorialist)  is now coming out of the woodwork to sling any allegation and any hair brained smear that they can against the Republican front runner. 
 
 


On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:27 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Lazarowitz  (A good Irish American I'm sure)  is just another example
of
far left extremists attacking our next President.
---
no ... he's a jew blasting RP because of his refusal to bend over for
israel.
he agrees with RP on most things except foreign policy.

"I am also anguished by the Big Government neoconservatives, whose
suggestions of bombing Iran have been based on false propaganda. Short-
term, present-oriented thinking is a common trait of the American
neoconservatives, who have been supporting the U.S. government's
expansion into foreign lands to force transitions from theocracy to
democracy among the Islamic states as though that will in some way
protect Israel, despite many years of history to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the neoconservatives have a blind religious faith in
the power and effectiveness of the State. In clinging to military
industrial complex socialism and bureaucracy, the neocons support the
U.S. government's interventions and foreign entanglements with other
governments, vicariously playing the role of "do-gooders" in a cops-
and-robbers fantasy world in the name of protecting the U.S. and
Israel. It is just as immoral to seize private wealth from American
Muslims, Christians and Atheists for redistribution to Israel as it is
immoral to seize private wealth from American Jews for redistribution
to Muslim states such as Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan. - SL

On Nov 21, 9:00 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh what a load of crap!  The only thing ignorant, is the article written
> by Scott Lazarowitz,  which I could dissect each and every paragraph
> showing the ignorance and misplaced prevaricate lies and smear,  but again,
> Lazarowitz  (A good Irish American I'm sure)  is just another example of
> far left extremists attacking our next President.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > *The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All
> > *by Scott Lazarowitz
>
> > During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt
> > Gingrich implied<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the
> > * Declaration of Independence*<http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm>:
> > "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> > with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> > pursuit of Happiness."
>
> > Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that there
> > should be a different set of laws for society when there is a "war"
> > underway. But the truth is, *war* is an artificial concept used by
> > collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts
> > of aggression against others and get away with it.
>
> > The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:
>
> >    - Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society
> >    act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids
> >    physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense), theft, fraud
> >    and trespass; or
> >    - Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of
> >    others' persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include
> >    theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and
> >    the use of the State's armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign
> >    peoples.
>
> > By "all men," the *Declaration* refers to *all of humankind* created
> > equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are
> > inherent in all of us as human beings. The *Declaration* does not state
> > that such rights apply only to Americans. And "unalienable" (or
> > inalienable) means that such rights are not *given* to anyone by
> > government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent
> > rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may
> > not take such rights away. And the Founders were very clear on the idea of
> > due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove
> > its case against a suspect.
>
> > Gingrich disagrees with these basic points. He opposes the idea of
> > presumption of innocence. If Gingrich believes that the President, a CIA
> > officer, a soldier or general may have the power to be judge, jury and
> > executioner against someone, then he certainly couldn't believe in the idea
> > of inalienable rights.
>
> > Here is just one example of Gingrich's ignorance, joined by most of the
> > other Republican candidates for president, in reference to President
> > Obama's order to assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due
> > process, without trial or any evidence brought forward:
>
> > When asked by CBS News anchor Scott Pelley if, as President, Gingrich
> > would "sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas,"
> > Gingrich's response<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>was a
> > *correction *for Pelley. Gingrich declared that al-Awlaki *was* found
> > guilty, by "a panel that looked at it and reported to the president."
>
> > But such a panel and its findings have been kept secret<http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/sing...>,
> > away from the scrutiny of al-Awlaki's counsel, a jury, Congress or the
> > American people. Gingrich believes that, if the government has told us that
> > someone is guilty of terrorism, without trial or even evidence brought
> > forth, then we must have a blind faith in these government officials that
> > they are telling the truth.
>
> > This is despite the fact that Obama never presented<http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/30/cia-assassinates-two-american-citi...>actual evidence against al-Awlaki, just as George W. Bush never
> > presented evidence <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.asp> of Osama bin
> > Laden's guilt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/obl-2001-interview.html>.
> > We should just believe them. Even the so-called killing of bin Laden by the
> > Navy SEALS might not have been true<http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts320.html>,
> > and bin Laden may actually already have died as early as 2001<http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts305.html>
> > .
>
> > So, are the war supporters and government expansionists really sure they
> > want such un-American, banana republic governmental powers to be in place?
> > At the recent debate, Gingrich<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>declared that, "If you engage in war against the United States, you are an
> > enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United
> > States…You cannot go to court."
>
> > Now, Gingrich is called, "Mr. Speaker" because he is fairly good at
> > speaking. But they do not call him "*Mr. Thinker*," that's for sure. You
> > see, like many others nowadays, he is assuming that, based on *someone's*determining that one is an "enemy combatant," therefore one has no civil
> > liberties. But it is those civil liberties, those inalienable rights to
> > life and liberty that includes presumption of innocence and due process,
> > which protect the individual from being falsely imprisoned or executed.
>
> > When you know that the Bush Administration knowingly<http://www.fff.org/comment/com1004d.asp>apprehended hundreds
> > of innocent people <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905l.asp>, including children
> > and senile old men<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-children...>,
> > at the beginning of their war against Afghanistan, and detained them
> > indefinitely without trial, evidence or even suspicion, and with more
> > innocents victimized by the Obama Administration<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantan...>as well – some of whom languished at Guantanamo prison for years – you have
> > to admit that these have been *crimes* committed by the agents of the
> > U.S. government against innocents.
>
> > And contrary to what the propagandists have been stating, the real purpose
> > of torturing presumably innocent people has been to extract false
> > confessions and to falsely implicate other innocents. (See here<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantana...>,
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/u-s-government-used-communist-...>and
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/interrogation-experts-from-eve...>.).
> > Stating, "but we're at war," as do Newt Gingrich and other statist
> > proponents of this kind of banana republic society, is a simply juvenile
> > attempt at rationalizing the government's crimes.
>
> > Now, are you really sure you want to trust the President, military
> > officers and soldiers, and CIA officers – or local police, for that matter
> > – to decide that someone is a "terrorist," and then be his judge, jury and
> > incarcerator, and *executioner*? Do you trust these people under orders<http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz30.1.html>of the likes of Obama, Janet Napolitano or Eric Holder to be the ones to
> > conclude that someone is a "terrorist," and then to be his judge, jury and
> > executioner? Already, some of these public officials<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94799>have referred
> > to Tea Partiers <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz6.1.1.html>as "terrorists<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html>."
>
> > And so we should believe that someone is a "terrorist" without any
> > evidence, because Barack Obama said so? Now, *there's* someone with
> > credibility. A President who has worked feverishly to bomb and destroy
> > Libya, only to have it come under al Qaeda rule. Or a President such as
> > Bush who bombed and destroyed Iraq, only to bring Iraq under rule of
> > repressive Islamic Sharia Law. We should trust these people to act as judge
> > and jury and to imprison those that such officials determine to be a
> > terrorist, despite the hundreds or thousands who had been swept up randomly
> > in Afghanistan and Iraq, falsely implicated, detained, tortured and
> > murdered?
>
> > And should we trust the young soldiers on the battlefield to make that
> > judgment? Remember, the brilliant George W. Bush has said that the whole
> > world is the battlefield now. And that includes the U.S., in which each
> > individual is treated like a criminal now, thanks to the TSA, DHS and
> > Patriot Act.
>
> > And should we trust soldiers, many of whom have been committing sexual
> > assaults <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/01-9> against female
> > military personnel? Or those who have been committing sexual assaults
> > against other male military personnel, and trust their superior officers
> > who defend them<http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secre...>?
> > Should we trust people of that ilk to determine that someone somewhere is a
> > "terrorist"? Or local police departments, many of which are<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/law-disorder/etc/cron.html>
> > corrupt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w192.html> or have been
> > increasingly
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  Newt.2012.gif
> 16KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Participate in Luntz Global's Survey



----------


<http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs028/1102932455828/img/51.jpg>
Luntz Global

Luntz Global is coming to BETHESDA, MD to moderate a focus group session relating to interesting political topics.

The group will be FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2nd from 6 pm to 9 pm.

You will receive $100 AND the opportunity to share your opinion... it couldn't be easier.

We want to emphasize our desire to pick people who are eager to express their opinions, and participate.

If you DO NOT live in the BETHESDA, MD area but you know someone that does, please share this email with them.
 

 
Take this survey

 

Sincerely,
 
Luntz Global
Forward email
<http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/SafeUnsubscribe_Footer_Logo_New.png> <http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/CC_Footer_Logo_New.png>
This email was sent to majors.bruce@gmail.com by focusgroups@luntzglobal.com |  
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Luntz Global | 1800 Diagonal Road | Alexandria | VA | 22314
<http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?llr=umml5fdab&t=1108724119599.0.1102932455828.137061&ts=S0696&o=http://ui.constantcontact.com/images/p1x1.gif>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Progressive Insurance -




 

Subject: Fwd: progressive insurance

 

 

 

 

 You've seen and smiled at the Progressive Insurance TV commercials.
Well, you're about to learn the rest of the story:




PROGRESSIVE AUTO INSURANCE


You know their TV commercials, the ones featuring the ditsy actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the Chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the major funders of leftist causes in America . Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of Americas Judeo-Christian heritage.  Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key propaganda arms of the socialist left. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the America-hating socialist who is the chief financier of the Obama political machine.

Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism, but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the American free enterprise system that is targeting television shows on Fox News.

Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans (who buy his auto insurance) that he applies to dismantle the very system that made him wealthy! He's banking on no one finding out who he is, so, STOP buying Progressive Insurance and pass this information on to all your friends.


Verify at Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/peterlewis.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-lewis.htm

All of a sudden I don't care for their "funny commercials."

 

 

 





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan

Prominent Pakistani Human rights activist , journalist and political analysts Mr.Baseer Naweed talked about the raise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan .
Please click the link to listen the talk :

http://williamgomes.org/?p=283

--
William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:
William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book:
www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter:
twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** AAJ K COLUMN 22 NOVEMBER'2011

ASSALAAM-O-ALAIKUM
AUR
SUBAH BAKHAIR.

 
Kashif Chatha
Sheikhupura

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Is internet service a basic human right?

Obama Gives Poor Free Internet After U.N. Says It's A Basic Human
Right

Following a laughable United Nations declaration that high-speed
internet access is a basic human right, the Obama Administration is
investing north of $400 million to expand broadband into poor, rural
areas of the U.S.

The president has long asserted that broadband access is essential for
communities to compete on a "level playing field" and he's included it
among the necessities to improve the lives of rural Americans. The
agency in charge of distributing the money—the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)—took it a step further this week, asserting that
high speed internet connections will help low-income residents in a
variety of unimaginable areas.

For instance, it will "improve healthcare and educational
opportunities," according to Obama's Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack. Broadband will also help the poor "connect to global
markets," Vilsack said, and it will provide "much-needed services to
rural businesses and residents." The investment, presumably on the
part of the government, will also "increase jobs" in rural areas,
Vilsack assures.

Utility companies in 15 states will receive a combined $410.7 in
grants from Uncle Sam to install or upgrade connections in rural and
low-income areas that currently don't have internet access or only
have slow, dialup connections. Among them are companies in North
Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, New Mexico and
Tennessee. It's all part of Obama's mission to improve the lives of
rural Americans, put people back to work and build thriving economies
in rural communities, according to the USDA. How exactly fast-speed
internet service will help accomplish this is not explained by the
agency.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Human Rights Council of the United
Nations General Assembly recently determined that, like healthcare,
shelter and food, broadband access is a basic human right that allows
people to "exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression."
In a lengthy report addressing obstacles that challenge the right of
all individuals to receive information through the internet, the U.N.
demands that governments worldwide make the internet "widely
available, accessible and affordable to all segments of the
population."

Here is the reasoning: "Given that the internet has become an
indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating
inequality and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring
universal access to the internet should be a priority for all states,"
the famously corrupt world body says in its report. The U.N. also
demands that governments offer special "internet literacy skills"
training to help the underserved with computer skills. This could very
well be the Obama Administration's next publicly-funded project.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/nov/poor-get-free-internet-after-u-n-says-it-s-basic-human-right

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Words of Wisdom from One of the TSA's Former Goons

The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of
Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the
107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush

there is nothing wrong with keep the airports safe from terrorists

On Nov 21, 2:33 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Words of Wisdom from One of the TSA's Former GoonsPosted byBecky Akerson November 21, 2011 10:23 AM
> Everyone's most hated bureaucracy employed Bill Forster at Los Angeles International Airport for four years, until he finally quit because "working" for the TSA was "honestly the worst most embarrassing jobI have ever had…it is theater folks! They protect no one. Its [sic] an illusion. Want proof? Next time you travel bring with you two glass bottles. One broken and one intact. The broken one will be taken away. It is after all a weapon! You can break the other bottle AFTER they let you in with it."
> Meanwhile, Saturday marked ten years since warmonger and torturer George W. Bush signed the legislation hatching this satanic agency. How utterly shameful that we've tolerated demeaning, brutal tyranny for a decade now as bad as a rat's dying in your living room of old age, fat and contented.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Turkey Poem






Subject: The Turkey Poem



The turkey shot out of the oven
And rocketed into the air,
It knocked every plate off the table
And partly demolished a chair.
It ricocheted into a corner
And burst with a deafening boom,
Then splattered all over the kitchen,
Completely obscuring the room.
It stuck to the walls and the windows,
It totally coated the floor;
There was turkey attached to the ceiling,
Where there'd never been turkey before.
It blanketed every appliance;
It smeared every saucer and bowl;
There wasn't a way I could stop it;
That turkey was out of control.
I scraped and I scrubbed with displeasure,
And thought with chagrin as I mopped,
I'd never again stuff a turkey
With popcorn that hadn't been popped.



--
I have to admire the individual who authored this poem~!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

OWS are pro-illegal immigrant scum

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-are-undocumented-putting-themselves-at-risk/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

46 congressmen call for Holder's resignation

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/two-more-congressmen-demand-eric-holder's-immediate-resignation-46-now-calling-for-it/

The members of Congress demanding Holder's immediate resignation say
that Holder either lied during a May 3 House Judiciary Committee
hearing and in other dealings with Congress, or is blatantly
incompetent as the attorney general of the United States of America.

"No matter what the case is, he must be held responsible for knowing
and overseeing a department that executed Operation Fast and Furious.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Words of Wisdom from One of the TSA's Former Goons


Words of Wisdom from One of the TSA's Former Goons
Posted by Becky Akers on November 21, 2011 10:23 AM

Everyone's most hated bureaucracy employed Bill Forster at Los Angeles International Airport for four years, until he finally quit because "working" for the TSA was "honestly the worst most embarrassing job I have ever had…it is theater folks! They protect no one. Its [sic] an illusion. Want proof? Next time you travel bring with you two glass bottles. One broken and one intact. The broken one will be taken away. It is after all a weapon! You can break the other bottle AFTER they let you in with it."

Meanwhile, Saturday marked ten years since warmonger and torturer George W. Bush signed the legislation hatching this satanic agency. How utterly shameful that we've tolerated demeaning, brutal tyranny for a decade now ­ as bad as a rat's dying in your living room of old age, fat and contented.

Re: The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All

Lazarowitz (A good Irish American I'm sure) is just another example
of
far left extremists attacking our next President.
---
no ... he's a jew blasting RP because of his refusal to bend over for
israel.
he agrees with RP on most things except foreign policy.

"I am also anguished by the Big Government neoconservatives, whose
suggestions of bombing Iran have been based on false propaganda. Short-
term, present-oriented thinking is a common trait of the American
neoconservatives, who have been supporting the U.S. government's
expansion into foreign lands to force transitions from theocracy to
democracy among the Islamic states as though that will in some way
protect Israel, despite many years of history to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the neoconservatives have a blind religious faith in
the power and effectiveness of the State. In clinging to military
industrial complex socialism and bureaucracy, the neocons support the
U.S. government's interventions and foreign entanglements with other
governments, vicariously playing the role of "do-gooders" in a cops-
and-robbers fantasy world in the name of protecting the U.S. and
Israel. It is just as immoral to seize private wealth from American
Muslims, Christians and Atheists for redistribution to Israel as it is
immoral to seize private wealth from American Jews for redistribution
to Muslim states such as Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan. - SL

On Nov 21, 9:00 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh what a load of crap!  The only thing ignorant, is the article written
> by Scott Lazarowitz,  which I could dissect each and every paragraph
> showing the ignorance and misplaced prevaricate lies and smear,  but again,
> Lazarowitz  (A good Irish American I'm sure)  is just another example of
> far left extremists attacking our next President.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > *The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All
> > *by Scott Lazarowitz
>
> > During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt
> > Gingrich implied<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the
> > * Declaration of Independence*<http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm>:
> > "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> > with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> > pursuit of Happiness."
>
> > Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that there
> > should be a different set of laws for society when there is a "war"
> > underway. But the truth is, *war* is an artificial concept used by
> > collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts
> > of aggression against others and get away with it.
>
> > The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:
>
> >    - Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society
> >    act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids
> >    physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense), theft, fraud
> >    and trespass; or
> >    - Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of
> >    others' persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include
> >    theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and
> >    the use of the State's armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign
> >    peoples.
>
> > By "all men," the *Declaration* refers to *all of humankind* created
> > equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are
> > inherent in all of us as human beings. The *Declaration* does not state
> > that such rights apply only to Americans. And "unalienable" (or
> > inalienable) means that such rights are not *given* to anyone by
> > government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent
> > rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may
> > not take such rights away. And the Founders were very clear on the idea of
> > due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove
> > its case against a suspect.
>
> > Gingrich disagrees with these basic points. He opposes the idea of
> > presumption of innocence. If Gingrich believes that the President, a CIA
> > officer, a soldier or general may have the power to be judge, jury and
> > executioner against someone, then he certainly couldn't believe in the idea
> > of inalienable rights.
>
> > Here is just one example of Gingrich's ignorance, joined by most of the
> > other Republican candidates for president, in reference to President
> > Obama's order to assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due
> > process, without trial or any evidence brought forward:
>
> > When asked by CBS News anchor Scott Pelley if, as President, Gingrich
> > would "sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas,"
> > Gingrich's response<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>was a
> > *correction *for Pelley. Gingrich declared that al-Awlaki *was* found
> > guilty, by "a panel that looked at it and reported to the president."
>
> > But such a panel and its findings have been kept secret<http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/sing...>,
> > away from the scrutiny of al-Awlaki's counsel, a jury, Congress or the
> > American people. Gingrich believes that, if the government has told us that
> > someone is guilty of terrorism, without trial or even evidence brought
> > forth, then we must have a blind faith in these government officials that
> > they are telling the truth.
>
> > This is despite the fact that Obama never presented<http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/30/cia-assassinates-two-american-citi...>actual evidence against al-Awlaki, just as George W. Bush never
> > presented evidence <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.asp> of Osama bin
> > Laden's guilt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/obl-2001-interview.html>.
> > We should just believe them. Even the so-called killing of bin Laden by the
> > Navy SEALS might not have been true<http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts320.html>,
> > and bin Laden may actually already have died as early as 2001<http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts305.html>
> > .
>
> > So, are the war supporters and government expansionists really sure they
> > want such un-American, banana republic governmental powers to be in place?
> > At the recent debate, Gingrich<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>declared that, "If you engage in war against the United States, you are an
> > enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United
> > States…You cannot go to court."
>
> > Now, Gingrich is called, "Mr. Speaker" because he is fairly good at
> > speaking. But they do not call him "*Mr. Thinker*," that's for sure. You
> > see, like many others nowadays, he is assuming that, based on *someone's*determining that one is an "enemy combatant," therefore one has no civil
> > liberties. But it is those civil liberties, those inalienable rights to
> > life and liberty that includes presumption of innocence and due process,
> > which protect the individual from being falsely imprisoned or executed.
>
> > When you know that the Bush Administration knowingly<http://www.fff.org/comment/com1004d.asp>apprehended hundreds
> > of innocent people <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905l.asp>, including children
> > and senile old men<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-children...>,
> > at the beginning of their war against Afghanistan, and detained them
> > indefinitely without trial, evidence or even suspicion, and with more
> > innocents victimized by the Obama Administration<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantan...>as well – some of whom languished at Guantanamo prison for years – you have
> > to admit that these have been *crimes* committed by the agents of the
> > U.S. government against innocents.
>
> > And contrary to what the propagandists have been stating, the real purpose
> > of torturing presumably innocent people has been to extract false
> > confessions and to falsely implicate other innocents. (See here<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantana...>,
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/u-s-government-used-communist-...>and
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/interrogation-experts-from-eve...>.).
> > Stating, "but we're at war," as do Newt Gingrich and other statist
> > proponents of this kind of banana republic society, is a simply juvenile
> > attempt at rationalizing the government's crimes.
>
> > Now, are you really sure you want to trust the President, military
> > officers and soldiers, and CIA officers – or local police, for that matter
> > – to decide that someone is a "terrorist," and then be his judge, jury and
> > incarcerator, and *executioner*? Do you trust these people under orders<http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz30.1.html>of the likes of Obama, Janet Napolitano or Eric Holder to be the ones to
> > conclude that someone is a "terrorist," and then to be his judge, jury and
> > executioner? Already, some of these public officials<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94799>have referred
> > to Tea Partiers <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz6.1.1.html>as "terrorists<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html>."
>
> > And so we should believe that someone is a "terrorist" without any
> > evidence, because Barack Obama said so? Now, *there's* someone with
> > credibility. A President who has worked feverishly to bomb and destroy
> > Libya, only to have it come under al Qaeda rule. Or a President such as
> > Bush who bombed and destroyed Iraq, only to bring Iraq under rule of
> > repressive Islamic Sharia Law. We should trust these people to act as judge
> > and jury and to imprison those that such officials determine to be a
> > terrorist, despite the hundreds or thousands who had been swept up randomly
> > in Afghanistan and Iraq, falsely implicated, detained, tortured and
> > murdered?
>
> > And should we trust the young soldiers on the battlefield to make that
> > judgment? Remember, the brilliant George W. Bush has said that the whole
> > world is the battlefield now. And that includes the U.S., in which each
> > individual is treated like a criminal now, thanks to the TSA, DHS and
> > Patriot Act.
>
> > And should we trust soldiers, many of whom have been committing sexual
> > assaults <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/01-9> against female
> > military personnel? Or those who have been committing sexual assaults
> > against other male military personnel, and trust their superior officers
> > who defend them<http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secre...>?
> > Should we trust people of that ilk to determine that someone somewhere is a
> > "terrorist"? Or local police departments, many of which are<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/law-disorder/etc/cron.html>
> > corrupt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w192.html> or have been
> > increasingly
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  Newt.2012.gif
> 16KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

Maybe a small wager is in order? A dollar and a beer says you willl
be
saying, "President Gingrich" this time next year.
----
you're on!

On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl!
>
> Maybe a small wager is in order?   A dollar and a beer says you willl be
> saying, "President Gingrich"  this time next year.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate
> > ---
> > hogwash ... history will prove you wrong
>
> > Newt is an unelectable asshole with poor judgement
>
> > On Nov 20, 9:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > November 15, 2011
> >http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...
> > > Poll Shows Gingrich More
> > > Electable<
> >http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...>A
> > > new McClatchy-Marist
> > > poll<
> >http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/15/130402/poll-gingrich-scores-bes..
> > .>finds
> > > Newt Gingrich is the strongest Republican presidential candidate when
> > > matched head to head against President Obama.
>
> > > Obama leads Gingrich by just two points, 47% to 45%. Mitt Romney is next
> > > closest, trailing Obama by 4 points, 49% to 44%. Ron Paul is the third
> > best
> > > bet for the Republicans right now, 8 points back from Obama, 49% to 41%.
>
> > > No other Republican is within single digits of the president.
>
> > >  Newt.2012.gif
> > > 16KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11

Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed
to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks
---
I agree. Interventionism is nothing short of a pre-emptive attack
based on fear.

On Nov 21, 2:09 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11By Lucy Madisonhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel(CBS News)
> Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."
> Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."
> But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."
> "I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."
> The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.
> "You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."
> When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.
> "America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "Wedidn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.
> "I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.
> Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.
> He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."
> "We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."
> The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.
> "I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."
> The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.
> Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.