Oh thats rich, Which!!! LOL!!! I honestly cant belive you typed that in permanent ink..you do realize that statement will go down in the archives to be used aginst you over and over again? Insipidness knows no bounds, uh? LOL!!
So who do you guys thing is the most qualified Republican candidate? And after you answer that, tell me which one has the best chance of being elected in the general election.
By the way, Ron Paul said he would be delighted to debate Rudy Giuliani on foreign policy. Do any of you think Giuliani would ever do that?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
His foreign policy is, "Anything that will get me elected, while I pull all troops back, turn my back on all alliances in the world, and button the country up until it collapses upon itself."
__________________________________________________________ If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Just as I thought. No foreign policy. I don't count "Bring Home All The Troops And Then Hope And Pray The Big Bad World Just Goes Away" as a foreign policy...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
That's the "foreign policy", as I understand it reading the likes of Junior and sarcasmo on their orgasmic praise of Ron Paul. If I am incorrect in my summation of Paul's "foreign policy" suggestions, by all means you two -- correct me. However, that is how I understand it to be from their comments in regards to it.
__________________________________________________________ If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
WhichWing, Ron Paul made a complete jackass of himself when he postulated that instead of getting involved in tangling alliances, we should talk and trade with foreign nations (enemies are none therefore - according to utopia).
Problem immediately apparent is : Saddam usurps the nation of Kuwait - absorbs it, slaughters it's sovereign leaders and makes it 19th province of Iraq. Iran and Israel descend into nuclear war.
Ron Paul never will explain how one trades, or makes diplomatic talkie talk with that.
Same for the takeover of Afghanistan by the USSR.
The whole problem with the Ron Paul perspective is : When we do what Ron says, we have to make sure everyone else does it too, or we can be looking at the rest of the world - with the new United Regime controlling it.
It's a nice fantasy, but out there in the real world, OTHER nations take OVER other nations, and things like the USSR SUPERPOWER come into being.
The next one could be an Islamic Caliphate SUPERSTATE that controls 55% or more of world energy supplies, aligned with Russia and China.
I get the feeling Ron Paul is a "mouse". I'm sure a lot of people see that in him. Now that's ok, he can sound and act like one all he wants, I just don't like his idea of the USA acting like one, while devouring animals of the world transform into larger and larger beasts of prey.
Maybe standing by while the world eats eachother up is the solution.
If that was the case, I understand India and Pakistan would have already nuked eachother. China may immediately invade and conquer Taiwan.
All of Africa can continue to descend into so many dead and unwated noone even counts the millions of bodies and nation name changes accurately. Evertime I look at amap there, there's a few nations I haven't seen before.
I don't mind the idea, but following it is a presciption for every first world and third world nation to EAT another or be eaten, and a certain way for China and Russia to start in the former,and restart in the latter gobbling up any nation they so choose. There's 193 or so, something like that, so it leaves them a lot of choices.
Ron Paul says "talk and trade" will stop all of that ? Should I consider him a mouse, a fool, or a wacko ?
I would consider Ron Paul dangerously naive. "Talk and trade". Right...what does North Korea have to trade with the world? And goven their track record for the past 60 years, what would talking to them accomplish?
And that is just ONE example.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If he's not a conservative (which I agree, he is not), why haven't there been calls to remove him from future debates? He is not in line with the party or its base. Or is it only on foreign policy that you have to agree to be considered a true Republican?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You assume everyone is either a Republican or Democrat. I am a conservative. Republicans tend to be more conservative. Last well-known conservative Democrat was "Give 'em Hell" Zell Miller.
If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
[...]
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
This is all great for a nation that is developing internally and one that is existing against all odds, but pretty piss-poor for the modern day world where economies are increasingly interconnected, and a world where all it really takes to upset all the applecarts is to have one or two rogues like Kim Jong-Il or Ahmadinejad to screw up everything for the world at large.
I realize that you live in extreme terror of the fact that there are other nations in the world, or there are people like me who have traveled to nations around the world (nine thus far), but you simply are going to have to accept the fact that interaction with other nations is extremely necessary and even desirable.
Demanding the United States hides under its collective covers from the rest of the Big Bad World,combined with intensive prayer that the rest of the world Just Goes Away, is no solution.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
[...]
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
...and so much for Thomas Jefferson avoiding with the world around him. The battles with Tripoli and the other Barbary Coast states took place from 1801 to 1805 (Marine Fight Song: "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."). Not to mention his signing into law a disastrous embargo in 1807, which essentially ground the U.S. economy to a halt.
So much for America being a smashing success as a Great Big Turtle.
By the way: what's with this quoting of history? I thought that history didn't matter to either you or Leon, as it obviously isn't applicable to modern society...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Are you not just now pointing out historical examples that you think make YOUR case? Do you wish to add the word "hypocrite" to your vast array of titles?
Deal with it: Thomas Jefferson did not have a noninterventionist foreign policy. He couldn't afford it. But then, I am sure that if you were in power, you would have happily paid as much tribute as possible to the beys of the Barbary States, in order to FEEL so GOOD inside! (And to hell with the damage to the ability of the United States to trade and conduct commerce...)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Once again, you changed the subject, and now that you see you are getting hammered there, you desperately want to change the subject to your favorite ostrich.
Okay, let's talk about your hero. How are you able to post about him while keeping his zipper firmly clenched in your teeth?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
T Jefferson failed to even protect Virginia from foreign assault when he was Governor, TWICE, and was nearly captured.
After the war costs were were put to determination, he wanted to make individual states pay their share of debt, and his state had little since he didn't defend it. Let the people die, and nearly be captured. Not just no tangling alliances, but near suicidal cowering, and no will to share the burdens of defense.
Then as vice president, he hovered over an undeclared naval war with France.
Furthermore, he slaughtered the indigenous here on this continent, after his gigantic land grab and expansionism, LP. Easy to claim no foreign entanglements if you can conquer quietly and pretend no enemy or war was fought, via payola.
He also wrote his own Bible, extracts from the Gospel "The Philosophy of Jesus" - a Bible thumper he was. So much for separation of church and state. He was attacked for his strange religious beliefs, and decided "separation" was a great way for him to slime in under no scrutiny of the public allowed, one of the earliest forms of political power censorship for ones own shortcomings or strange interpretations.
He lived his adult life in constant indebtedness, yet contributed to all churches in his town, and always maintained affiliation with the Anglican Church. He then joined the Unitarian when he was forced to Pennsylvania, Virginia not wanting to re-elect a cowering scoundrel not capable of defending them.
DNA evidence now confirms his slave child, and he never freed his own slaves. He commonly expressed his belief that dark races were inferior to the white. He contributed to the death of countless Indians with his unpresidential removal policies. Remove and slaughter. This isn't war, these are savage darkies. No entangling alliances, none at all with Indian Nations, except those that lead to the Trail of Tears.
Ahh, yes, a wonderful example ofhow to make one's own skin the only cause celeb, promote censorship of your religious zealoutry, write your own Bible, spend more money than you have your entire life, have slaves and a rape baby, never release slaves, policy for massive land grab from indigenous, oversee an undeclared war, and slaughter with reckless abandon the dark indigenous.
Great plan, quoting that President for no alliances.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Giuliani bit off more than
May 24, 2007 - 17:14 ET by WhichWingGiuliani bit off more than he can chew. If they don't nominate Ron Paul, they are going to have a Democrat in the White House. Simple as that.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
ROFLMAO!!!!!
May 24, 2007 - 17:17 ET by bigtimerROFLMAO!!!!!
Oh thats rich, Which!!! LOL!!
May 24, 2007 - 17:22 ET by bassndudeOh thats rich, Which!!! LOL!!! I honestly cant belive you typed that in permanent ink..you do realize that statement will go down in the archives to be used aginst you over and over again? Insipidness knows no bounds, uh? LOL!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Let's settle this right here,
May 24, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Clear thinkerWhichWing...
Let's settle this right here, right now...
Head to head in the primary who wins... Fred vs Ron?
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
So who do you guys thing
May 24, 2007 - 17:28 ET by WhichWingSo who do you guys thing is the most qualified Republican candidate? And after you answer that, tell me which one has the best chance of being elected in the general election.
By the way, Ron Paul said he would be delighted to debate Rudy Giuliani on foreign policy. Do any of you think Giuliani would ever do that?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Too early to call, there may
May 24, 2007 - 17:30 ET byToo early to call, there may be more choices yet
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
True enough."The power
May 24, 2007 - 17:31 ET by WhichWingTrue enough.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
He hasent entered the race ye
May 24, 2007 - 17:36 ET by bassndudeHe hasent entered the race yet.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Does Ron Paul even HAVE a for
May 25, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneDoes Ron Paul even HAVE a foreign policy?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Of course
May 25, 2007 - 00:27 ET by Mr. BishopHis foreign policy is, "Anything that will get me elected, while I pull all troops back, turn my back on all alliances in the world, and button the country up until it collapses upon itself."
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Confirming my suspicions
May 25, 2007 - 00:47 ET by UnsaneJust as I thought. No foreign policy. I don't count "Bring Home All The Troops And Then Hope And Pray The Big Bad World Just Goes Away" as a foreign policy...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Well
May 25, 2007 - 00:52 ET by Mr. BishopThat's the "foreign policy", as I understand it reading the likes of Junior and sarcasmo on their orgasmic praise of Ron Paul. If I am incorrect in my summation of Paul's "foreign policy" suggestions, by all means you two -- correct me. However, that is how I understand it to be from their comments in regards to it.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Unsane,Homework done.I'm out.
May 25, 2007 - 00:53 ET by BlondeUnsane,
Homework done.
I'm out.
Ron Paul WhichWing
May 24, 2007 - 17:53 ET by SportPoliticsWhichWing, Ron Paul made a complete jackass of himself when he postulated that instead of getting involved in tangling alliances, we should talk and trade with foreign nations (enemies are none therefore - according to utopia).
Problem immediately apparent is : Saddam usurps the nation of Kuwait - absorbs it, slaughters it's sovereign leaders and makes it 19th province of Iraq. Iran and Israel descend into nuclear war.
Ron Paul never will explain how one trades, or makes diplomatic talkie talk with that.
Same for the takeover of Afghanistan by the USSR.
The whole problem with the Ron Paul perspective is : When we do what Ron says, we have to make sure everyone else does it too, or we can be looking at the rest of the world - with the new United Regime controlling it.
It's a nice fantasy, but out there in the real world, OTHER nations take OVER other nations, and things like the USSR SUPERPOWER come into being.
The next one could be an Islamic Caliphate SUPERSTATE that controls 55% or more of world energy supplies, aligned with Russia and China.
I get the feeling Ron Paul is a "mouse". I'm sure a lot of people see that in him. Now that's ok, he can sound and act like one all he wants, I just don't like his idea of the USA acting like one, while devouring animals of the world transform into larger and larger beasts of prey.
Maybe standing by while the world eats eachother up is the solution.
If that was the case, I understand India and Pakistan would have already nuked eachother. China may immediately invade and conquer Taiwan.
All of Africa can continue to descend into so many dead and unwated noone even counts the millions of bodies and nation name changes accurately. Evertime I look at amap there, there's a few nations I haven't seen before.
I don't mind the idea, but following it is a presciption for every first world and third world nation to EAT another or be eaten, and a certain way for China and Russia to start in the former,and restart in the latter gobbling up any nation they so choose. There's 193 or so, something like that, so it leaves them a lot of choices.
Ron Paul says "talk and trade" will stop all of that ? Should I consider him a mouse, a fool, or a wacko ?
Dangerously naive
May 25, 2007 - 00:17 ET by UnsaneI would consider Ron Paul dangerously naive. "Talk and trade". Right...what does North Korea have to trade with the world? And goven their track record for the past 60 years, what would talking to them accomplish?
And that is just ONE example.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
No love for Rudy
May 24, 2007 - 17:22 ET by LionKingI am not a Rudy fan. He is certainly not a conservative.
Thompson/Hunter '08!
May 24, 2007 - 17:29 ET by bigtimerThompson/Hunter '08!
If he's not a conservative
May 24, 2007 - 17:30 ET by WhichWingIf he's not a conservative (which I agree, he is not), why haven't there been calls to remove him from future debates? He is not in line with the party or its base. Or is it only on foreign policy that you have to agree to be considered a true Republican?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
U assume everyone is either a Dem or Pub
May 24, 2007 - 17:33 ET by LionKingYou assume everyone is either a Republican or Democrat. I am a conservative. Republicans tend to be more conservative. Last well-known conservative Democrat was "Give 'em Hell" Zell Miller.
In your opinion LionKing, i
May 25, 2007 - 01:51 ET by WhichWingIn your opinion LionKing, is Ron Paul a conservative?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The Original Foreign Policy
May 25, 2007 - 01:35 ET by WhichWingThe Original Foreign Policy
[...]
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
[...]
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
This is all great for a natio
May 25, 2007 - 01:41 ET by UnsaneThis is all great for a nation that is developing internally and one that is existing against all odds, but pretty piss-poor for the modern day world where economies are increasingly interconnected, and a world where all it really takes to upset all the applecarts is to have one or two rogues like Kim Jong-Il or Ahmadinejad to screw up everything for the world at large.
I realize that you live in extreme terror of the fact that there are other nations in the world, or there are people like me who have traveled to nations around the world (nine thus far), but you simply are going to have to accept the fact that interaction with other nations is extremely necessary and even desirable.
Demanding the United States hides under its collective covers from the rest of the Big Bad World,combined with intensive prayer that the rest of the world Just Goes Away, is no solution.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
[...]Of course we frequentl
May 25, 2007 - 01:48 ET by WhichWing[...]
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
[...]
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Nothing says moral clarity li
May 25, 2007 - 01:50 ET by UnsaneNothing says moral clarity like 35+ million dead because some world leaders refused to do the right thing in 1938...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
...and so much for Thomas Jef
May 25, 2007 - 01:46 ET by Unsane...and so much for Thomas Jefferson avoiding with the world around him. The battles with Tripoli and the other Barbary Coast states took place from 1801 to 1805 (Marine Fight Song: "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."). Not to mention his signing into law a disastrous embargo in 1807, which essentially ground the U.S. economy to a halt.
So much for America being a smashing success as a Great Big Turtle.
By the way: what's with this quoting of history? I thought that history didn't matter to either you or Leon, as it obviously isn't applicable to modern society...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I've pointed out that you o
May 25, 2007 - 01:50 ET by WhichWingI've pointed out that you only acknowledge the examples from history that you think make your case. All others you cast aside as idiocy.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Are you not just now pointing
May 25, 2007 - 01:54 ET by UnsaneAre you not just now pointing out historical examples that you think make YOUR case? Do you wish to add the word "hypocrite" to your vast array of titles?
Deal with it: Thomas Jefferson did not have a noninterventionist foreign policy. He couldn't afford it. But then, I am sure that if you were in power, you would have happily paid as much tribute as possible to the beys of the Barbary States, in order to FEEL so GOOD inside! (And to hell with the damage to the ability of the United States to trade and conduct commerce...)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
This thread is about Ron Pa
May 25, 2007 - 01:59 ET by WhichWingThis thread is about Ron Paul, and that is who's words I have posted and linked to.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
So after changing the subject
May 25, 2007 - 02:03 ET by UnsaneSo after changing the subject, and seeing you are getting hammered, you have to change the subject to your favorite ostrich?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT R
May 25, 2007 - 02:08 ET by WhichWingTHIS THREAD IS ABOUT R O N P A U L. You were questioning his foreign policy, I shared some of his writings on the subject.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Once again, you changed the s
May 25, 2007 - 02:11 ET by UnsaneOnce again, you changed the subject, and now that you see you are getting hammered there, you desperately want to change the subject to your favorite ostrich.
Okay, let's talk about your hero. How are you able to post about him while keeping his zipper firmly clenched in your teeth?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Zing! I read your profile,
May 25, 2007 - 02:35 ET by WhichWingZing! I read your profile, and followed the instructions. I just changed the man behind the zipper.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
?
May 25, 2007 - 02:38 ET by UnsaneWhat?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
WW
May 25, 2007 - 02:49 ET by SportPoliticsT Jefferson failed to even protect Virginia from foreign assault when he was Governor, TWICE, and was nearly captured.
After the war costs were were put to determination, he wanted to make individual states pay their share of debt, and his state had little since he didn't defend it. Let the people die, and nearly be captured. Not just no tangling alliances, but near suicidal cowering, and no will to share the burdens of defense.
Then as vice president, he hovered over an undeclared naval war with France.
Furthermore, he slaughtered the indigenous here on this continent, after his gigantic land grab and expansionism, LP. Easy to claim no foreign entanglements if you can conquer quietly and pretend no enemy or war was fought, via payola.
He also wrote his own Bible, extracts from the Gospel "The Philosophy of Jesus" - a Bible thumper he was. So much for separation of church and state. He was attacked for his strange religious beliefs, and decided "separation" was a great way for him to slime in under no scrutiny of the public allowed, one of the earliest forms of political power censorship for ones own shortcomings or strange interpretations.
He lived his adult life in constant indebtedness, yet contributed to all churches in his town, and always maintained affiliation with the Anglican Church. He then joined the Unitarian when he was forced to Pennsylvania, Virginia not wanting to re-elect a cowering scoundrel not capable of defending them.
DNA evidence now confirms his slave child, and he never freed his own slaves. He commonly expressed his belief that dark races were inferior to the white. He contributed to the death of countless Indians with his unpresidential removal policies. Remove and slaughter. This isn't war, these are savage darkies. No entangling alliances, none at all with Indian Nations, except those that lead to the Trail of Tears.
Ahh, yes, a wonderful example ofhow to make one's own skin the only cause celeb, promote censorship of your religious zealoutry, write your own Bible, spend more money than you have your entire life, have slaves and a rape baby, never release slaves, policy for massive land grab from indigenous, oversee an undeclared war, and slaughter with reckless abandon the dark indigenous.
Great plan, quoting that President for no alliances.
You IDIOT WhichWing.
Who did I quote?"The p
May 25, 2007 - 07:02 ET by WhichWingWho did I quote?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw