# D.C. 2nd Amendment Case



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I imagine everybody's aware of the important case coming up in March in which the Supreme Court will visit the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or only state militias. How do you think this will go? Worried?

I'm worried. I've lost all trust and confidence in the federal government, regardless of party affiliations. They consistently show a love for playing games with words rather than living up to the values that those words express, and wording is exactly what this case hinges on.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I share your sentiments. I worry that this government is going to play this word game to our demise this time. They know that it implies individuals, I have read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, words of the Founding Fathers, etc. many times and have yet to find any evidence that this is meant just for state militias. You cannot logically derive that to counter an oppressive government, you rely on that very government to supply the individuals with the means to do so. I dislike each party and am waiting for the day when we, as a collective body of citizens will stand up for our rights. I worry though that it may be just like the CCR song, "Someday Never Comes".


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

I will have to ditto the first two responses to this thread. I personally am extremely worried that this ruling in March will be but a springboard for other and more restrictive rulings to come. Looking at a nice handgun? Got your eye on a fancy assault rifle? Well, you **** well better quit looking and start buying, because March is coming up pretty quick. I'm not kidding either. We are one of the last, if not the last, 1st world country that allows its citzens the right to bear arms.(With the exception of Isreal and Switzerland.) The UN has already made significant attempts to ban guns in our country, as well as many from BOTH political parties. While the NRA is powerful, it is not enough to stop this eventual tide. The day will come when we may truly have to "bear" our arms simply to preserve the rights deemed inaliable by our founding fathers. What a sad and horrific day that will be, but should it come I hope that we will all be ready to fight. I don't know about you, but I can not side with these political fatcats, because "it aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's Son." CCR


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Well, it's super awesome to see that all of the retarded calibur questions and reloading inquiries were addressed so thoroughly, but the one post about the Supreme Court voting on the very constitutionality of us citizens' right to bear arms has had two responses and is then brushed under the rug to be forgotten. That really shows we've got our priorities straight. Way to show us all what really counts guys. :evil:


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah, I got about as much feedback when I started a thread about this issue awile back: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=753


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

ScottyP said:


> Yeah, I got about as much feedback when I started a thread about this issue awile back: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=753


I would have responded, but that was before I found the new site. Thanks for those who give a crap about freedom and the preservation thereof.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

J-bass said:


> Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:


This is my first venture into the Firearms, gear, equipment section, so sorry for not responding to this earlier. I am scared to death about this, the only hope we have is the Justices appointed by GWB, This is why I get ticked when people say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, the Judges appointed DO make a major difference. I just hope Roberts, Sacilia, Thomas, and Alito can drag at least one other Justice over to respecting the 2nd Amendment.

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> J-bass said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, five people responded out of 897. I wonder why our country is going down the crapper so fast? Hey everyone, do you like freedom? Yeah, I didn't think so. Well, luckily for you, you don't need to worry about that anymore, because it's being systematically taken away for you!!! Hoorah!!! :roll:
> ...


Thanks for the response pro. Maybe we should spread the word in the hunting forum to get awareness up a little bit. We all need to be calling, emailng and/or writing our congressmen to let them know how we feel. While not directly related to this at this time, congress and the president do have the authority to oversee the supreme court, so starting to let them know now how you feel on this issue is important.


----------



## huntducksordietrying (Sep 21, 2007)

J-bass said:


> I will have to ditto the first two responses to this thread. I personally am extremely worried that this ruling in March will be but a springboard for other and more restrictive rulings to come. Looking at a nice handgun? Got your eye on a fancy assault rifle? Well, you **** well better quit looking and start buying, because March is coming up pretty quick. I'm not kidding either. We are one of the last, if not the last, 1st world country that allows its citzens the right to bear arms.(With the exception of Isreal and Switzerland.) The UN has already made significant attempts to ban guns in our country, as well as many from BOTH political parties. While the NRA is powerful, it is not enough to stop this eventual tide. The day will come when we may truly have to "bear" our arms simply to preserve the rights deemed inaliable by our founding fathers. What a sad and horrific day that will be, but should it come I hope that we will all be ready to fight. I don't know about you, but I can not side with these political fatcats, because "it aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's Son." CCR


Word.


----------



## Desperado (Sep 27, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I imagine everybody's aware of the important case coming up in March in which the Supreme Court will visit the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or only state militias. How do you think this will go? Worried?
> 
> I'm worried. I've lost all trust and confidence in the federal government, regardless of party affiliations. They consistently show a love for playing games with words rather than living up to the values that those words express, and wording is exactly what this case hinges on.


I'm always worried about anything that comes up concerning these issues. Part of it is because there is always something I want to add to my collection, but mostly its because of the real issues at stake. Of course 99.9% of all the hype put into gun restrictions has to do with appearances and misleading interpretation. Those AR-15s and AK-47s look mean and scary so they must be bad. Well, you know what? A lot of power tools and motor vehicles look menacing too, but no one's looking to outlaw those. You could just as easily kill someone with a nail gun or a car as you could with a firearm.

People should be free to choose how to defend their families. If someone feels like a 911 call or kitchen knife is enough, then so be it. If someone feels like there is a real possibility they might have to fight off multiple armed invaders, then they should be able to have the means available to them to choose the tool that will best suit their needs. I'm not saying that I want to have a belt-fed machine gun, truth be told I do not have the training necessary to use one effectively, but why can't I have a handgun to defend myself with? Why does a gun with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or threaded barrel have to be considered an "assault weapon"? Why can't I shoot an AR-15 at jackrabbits, or at the range, or in competition? As long as I am being safe and responsible then what harm am I causing anyone?

All this propaganda about "assault weapons" and such get me so upset because people are so ignorant or misinformed and start spouting off terms they hear politicians say even though they have no idea what they mean. They just want to sound smart. How can you be against something if you have no idea what things even mean? I had an incident with a girl I worked with a few months ago that got on her soapbox about her view on guns. I remember she said, "I don't think regular people should have semi-automatic guns". When I asked her if she knew what that term meant she told me that she did. What she actually thought was that both semi and fully-automatic were the same thing. "All you have to do is hold down the trigger and bullets fly everywhere". She was obviously just repeating jargon she heard on the news or whatever, but because of the way it gets warped in the media it got all misconstrued. I told her the difference and also told her that "regular people" don't have fully-automatic weapons because they are so expensive that hardly anyone can afford them, so there really isn't much of a threat of "regular people" buying up tons of machine guns when they cost as much as the family car.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> It's much more basic than an "assault weapons" ban. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment allows guns ONLY in the hands of government controlled militia, then everyone else who is not National Guard, police or other military may not own weapons! A single shot .22 could become as illegal as a .50 BMG. This is truly the single most important Supreme Court decision of my lifetime- bigger than Roe v Wade.


I agree 100%.

Now tell me fellow *GUN OWNERS* who are you voting for next fall? And how many of you say there is little difference between the two party's? If there were two new Justices appointed by President Gore/Kerry we all know what the outcome would be, at least as of now we have a chance to keep out most basic right and ABILITY to remain a free nation. No guns, no freedom!

PRO


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

I will vote for Ron Paul if he makes it. My second choice is Mitt and beyond that I don't like any of them. Why are you so worried about peoples trust in either party? I think the biggest concern should be that we keep our citizens informed enough to stand for the constitution regardless of who is in power and not leave blind faith in the party system.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

In Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution it states:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So Bush has sworn to do this yet he has violated that very promise. The Patriot Act violates many parts of the constitution. One notable violation comes from Article 1 Section Nine. It states the legislative powers that congress has or does not have. In it we read;
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So since the constitution grants the President the executive powers, why has he used them to violate the supreme law of the land? Why should we trust in the republicans or the democrats. My examples are just part of the big picture regarding violations from both sides.

When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Amendment II of the Bill of Rights:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the words of the Second Amendment, I read that if we as the people are ever going to be able to form our own militias to protect ourselves from tyranny, then our right to bear arms cannot be infringed. 
Our rights our inalienable and God-given and cannot be taken from us. That is the spirit that the Founding Fathers wrote these documents like the Bill of Rights with.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Articles Nine and Ten tell me that even though some rights have been spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights, it is not all inclusive and there are rights such as life, liberty, and happiness that even though they have not been enumerated in an ammendment, still belong to the people. So even if some want to deny us of rights because it is not expressly written in the Bill of Rights, they are still our rights. To adequately maintain our freedom, and liberty, we need to be able to protect our homes and our families and no law can disparage this.

In The Declaration of Independence, it lists as one of the injustices of the King of England was that:
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. 

How can government controlled militias even hold up to this statement. They absolutely render the military, and its powers as superior to its citizens. How is this power derived you say. It is in the bearing of arms. This is our right. Our government has an obligation to uphold the constitution and not try to interpret it. I will end this with a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is pertinent to this upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that the Constitution should be interpreted, as he indicated when he said, "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?


If you think there is no difference in what type of Justices will be appointed by whomever is the Democrat and whomever is the Republican candidates, you are seriously naive.

Ron Paul has NO chance of being the Republican nominee, NONE! My point that you are missing is that ANY of the Republicans will nominate more gun-friendly Judges than ANY of the Democrats. And, EVERY 'third party' candidate is irrelevant and would be a wasted vote for one of them. The biggest difference between Republicans on the national level and Democrats is the appointment of judges. No other issue directly affects us in out daily lives. To cast a vote for a Democrat at the national level puts our gun-ownership at risk, if this seems wise to you, please explain.

PRO


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > When are we going to stop trying to be good republicans, or democrats, and start being good Americans?
> 
> 
> If you think there is no difference in what type of Justices will be appointed by whomever is the Democrat and whomever is the Republican candidates, you are seriously naive.
> ...


I will explain that to you, when you explain to me where I ever said I would vote for a democrat. 
You say no other issue affects our daily lives. That is absurd, and you call me niave? Pull your head out of your ass. The sooner the better.
You simply do not know that Ron Paul stands no chance. You are obviously going with the opinions of biased sources like Faux News who want us to believe that in order to dissuade us from that. 
You call me niave, who the hell are you? Stick with your republicans and take their word for it if you must. Please tell my why Bush has not tried to stop the upcomming legislation to ban firearms. Tell me why the republicans have been so silent about it. Before you call me naive, prove your own mettle. Guiding hunts doesn't make you any more credible than me.


----------



## CC (Sep 8, 2007)

The entire purpose of having thee branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), is to separate the powers, and to provide checks and balances to keep one branch from overpowering any of the others. When PRO talks about selecting Republicans in the upcoming election, he isn't just talking about the President, but also the Senate. When a judicial appointment is made to the Supreme Court (a lifetime appointment), it begins with a nomination by the executive, and then proceeds to a confirmation hearing by the Senate. One of the most important, long lasting things that a President will ever do is to place a Justice on the Supreme Court. Many Presidents have never had that opportunity; President Bush placed two! When the ruling on the 2nd Amendment comes around, pray that the two Justices placed by the Republican President and Senate, will carry some weight and influence on the outcome. PRO is right, that Kerry or Gore would have selected a different minded type of Justice, but this does not mean that the Senate would have confirmed those nominations necessarily. Anyway, there is little (that I'm aware of) President Bush can do Constitutionally to influence the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling. This goes to separation of powers / checks and balances. As long as we are on Constitutional issues, it is a shame that we have political parties, as there is no mention of them in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers actually hoped to avoid political parties altogether, as they had seen the problems of party politics in England.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

That is true CC. I knew that is what he meant, but after taking the time to analyse and post what I did, to be called naive over a tangent issue just infuriates me. 
My point is that if the citizens do not keep tabs on their government, it doesn't matter what party they are from, there will always be deciet and abuse of power going on. If we could all focus on the big 3 three documents(Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence), and keep others educated and active towards these ends, than it won't matter what party they represent, they will have to follow the constitution, because we will make sure of it. I wish people better understood that it is their dutie to overthrow any government which becomes a tyrant in their lives.


----------



## Desperado (Sep 27, 2007)

fatbass said:


> It's much more basic than an "assault weapons" ban. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment allows guns ONLY in the hands of government controlled militia, then everyone else who is not National Guard, police or other military may not own weapons! A single shot .22 could become as illegal as a .50 BMG. This is truly the single most important Supreme Court decision of my lifetime- bigger than Roe v Wade.


I agree. I was just citing a few examples of things that have bothered me with other bills and acts of legislation. I reread my post and realized I could have been more clear. It does sound like I am only talking about AWB and hi-cap issues instead of the right to bear arms in its entirety. My bad.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

The three branches of the fed government have checks and balances with each other but the most important checks and balances are the ones between the government and the people. That is what the bill of rights is. They are not in order of importance, they are equally important. Our rights to free speech, assembly, a free press, and to be secure in our homes from unlawfull government aggression are no more important that our right to be an armed citizenry. The right to posess firearms is what protects all other rights and a supreme court that doesn't recognize that is as wrong and immoral as the supreme court that handed down the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

I pray this decision will be a good one and will compell Illinois and other states and localities to revise their restrictive gun laws that deprive their citizens and empower their criminals.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nibblenutty wrote:


> You say no other issue affects our daily lives. That is absurd, and you call me niave? Pull your head out of your ass. The sooner the better.


The *issue* I was/am referring to is the appointment of Judges, and it *IS* the single most critical issue that affects our daily lives. To say otherwise is "absurd", and dare I say "naive"?! To vote for a democrat or a third party is a vote to put activist judges on the bench,, which WILL erode our civil liberties faster/more than ANY piece of legislation could ever do! When you hear the pop, you will know *your* head has cleared. :shock: :wink:

PRO


----------



## CC (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nibblenutty wrote:
> 
> 
> > You say no other issue affects our daily lives. That is absurd, and you call me niave? Pull your head out of your ass. The sooner the better.
> ...


PRO, Your post leads me to believe that you assume any third party candidate weakens only the Republican party. Historically speaking, the past third party candidates that have impacted elections have weakened the Republican vote, but this doesn't necessarily equate to ALL third party candidates in the future. It is a shame that Ron Paul isn't getting the Republicans attention....Quite honestly, his platform is very Constitutionally based.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> PRO, Your post leads me to believe that you assume any third party candidate weakens only the Republican party. Historically speaking, the past third party candidates that have impacted elections have weakened the Republican vote, but this doesn't necessarily equate to ALL third party candidates in the future. It is a shame that Ron Paul isn't getting the Republicans attention....Quite honestly, his platform is very Constitutionally based.


No, I see third party candidates as a wasted vote, regardless of which party is hurt by the vote. Whether you are on the left or right, a vote for a third party candidate is a half a vote for someone on the other end of the spectrum, hence it being a WASTED vote, or worse a half vote for a candidate with very few issues in agreement with you. A vote for a Libertarian candidate would be a half vote for the Democratic nominee.

Ron Paul sealed his fate with his comments about 9-11, that doomed his chance of being taken serious regardless of where he stands on other issues. He would make a typical Libertarian candidate, one who has a few good ideas, but is out there on way to many issues to be taken as a serious option for being Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on the planet. And, his voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard, I wouldn't be able to listen to him and Hilliary during a head to head debate.

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Pro, you are mistaken to put your trust in the party system. It is simply a scam, a front, and a smokescreen. Both parties have become immoral, corrupt, and completely disrespectful of the constitution. While I agree that HISTORICALLY republicans have voted more often to protect gun laws, such is certainly not the case today. Do you realize where the greatest threat to our right to bear arms comes from? It's not our government, in any of the three branches, because our entire government as we know it is under attack from legislation designed to undermine and eventually overthrow it. You must be wondering what I'm talking about. Well, everyone knows about NAFTA, a highly republican supported "free trade" agreement that facilitated the outsourcing, or expulsion, of hundreds of thousand of jobs to Mexico. Did you know that through the terms of this agreement, our Republican president enacted the Securities and Prosperity Partnership in Waco Texas in 2005, and agreement designed to expand upon NAFTA and bring greater integration of our three countries in a variety of areas. Why does this matter? Well, it's the exact plan that was used to launch the European Union (EU), which now has governing power over all the countries within it's realm and supercedes their constitutions and laws. Don't believe me? Check this out.
The EU started out as the European Coal and Steel Community, which soon became the European Economic Community or Common Market. It was developed to "promote trade and ease of travel." Sound familiar? Yeah, it's just like NAFTA. Then, as more political integration took place, the Common Market expanded and became the European Community, which we can liken to the SPP. The final process was then expanded one final time to become the European Union. So if the plan perpetuates as it did is Europe, we're only one step away from the North American Union, and what the Supreme Court says won't matter at all. 
And that's not all. Republicans have voted for a whole host of global bodies designed to usurp the power of this nation, such as the U.N., the WTO, the World Bank, The Law of the Sea Treaty, and many more.
Furthermore, republicans are bleeding away our nations resources through their economic "strategies" of outsourcing. This allows huge conglomerate corporations to evade massive tax payments, and well as circumnavigate labor laws, child labor laws, safe work laws, etc. They have enable, through their legislation, the enslavement of thousands, millions, even billions of people in third world countries, while they have at the same time taken away hundreds of thousands of high paying, manufacturing jobs for the American Middle class.
Now, I am certainly NOT saying that the Democratic Party is better, or the right way to go either. They are just as corrupt and despicable, but to naively vote down a party line for one issue, while they are so despicable in so many other areas is asinine at best. What effects us more than judges, and rulings, and legislature is the disregard for and usurpation of the three documents Nuts wrote about, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And, as CC stated, the founding fathers knew the dangers of the party system and tried, (obviously in vain), to rid the country of it. This fight we find ourselves in, the problems that we face, are so above the pettiness of party lines it's ridiculous. Stay true not to a color, or an animal, or a party. Stay true to your freedoms, to your rights, to your country.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro, let me remind you that republicans are the front runners of the globalization and outsourcing movement. The NAU is coming and it is designed to immitate the European Union, which will all eventually fall into UN rule. Just as our Seas have been handed over to the rulings of the UN in the Law of the Sea Treaty that I posted on here a few weeks ago that faithful republicans such as yourself conveniently ignored. Keep in mind also that the members of the EU handed over their military sovreignty to the EU when they joined this fascist trading block. Ron Paul is representing the fundamentals of the constitution which are appearantly too radical in your view. So remind me how that makes you any different than a liberal if you are so willing to disregard the founding documents for the sake of your party loyalty?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> Pro, let me remind you that republicans are the front runners of the globalization and outsourcing movement. The NAU is coming and it is designed to immitate the European Union, which will all eventually fall into UN rule. Just as our Seas have been handed over to the rulings of the UN in the Law of the Sea Treaty that I posted on here a few weeks ago that faithful republicans such as yourself conveniently ignored. Keep in mind also that the members of the EU handed over their military sovreignty to the EU when they joined this fascist trading block. Ron Paul is representing the fundamentals of the constitution which are appearantly too radical in your view. So remind me how that makes you any different than a liberal if you are so willing to disregard the founding documents for the sake of your party loyalty?


Nothing like hyperbole. :roll:

First, the UN is a joke, and I don't see them enforcing anything on America, how can they?

"Ron Paul is representing the fundamentals of the constitution" by blaming America for 9-11 how exactly? An immediate pull-out of Iraq would protect America and her interests, economy, and safety how? I in no way say Republicans are innocent, I DO however believe that is NOT the issue here. I see it as* you * voting for a Ron Paul, or any third party candidate an endorsement of Hilliary Clinton, which is THE issue facing us on this topic. President Hilliary Clinton would appoint activist judges who will turn America into West France in no time. All the conspiracy theories floating about tells me people listen to Savage Nation too much. Trying to scare people with big conspiracies turn people off, stick with issues most people can relate to, like the 2nd Amendment, securing our borders, that will get people on 'your' side. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who will get less than 5% of the vote in the Primaries, making him irrelevant, regardless of whether or not he has good ideals. Then the odds are high he will run as a third party candidate, taking votes away from the Republican candidate, which will help elect a democrat to the white house, giving them control over the white house, the senate, and the congress, and as a result the judical system. If that seems like a good plan, good luck.

PRO


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

On the subject of third party candidates only, they can and have changed the outcome of elections; Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in the White House and today we are still dealing with Clintons. I do however still use Perot's "better make hay while the balers warm" cliche.


----------



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

[quote="proutdoors Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who will get less than 5% of the vote in the Primaries, making him irrelevant, regardless of whether or not he has good ideals. Then the odds are high he will run as a third party candidate, taking votes away from the Republican candidate, which will help elect a democrat to the white house, giving them control over the white house, the senate, and the congress, and as a result the judical system. If that seems like a good plan, good luck.

PRO[/quote]

I have to agree with Pro on this one, in theory it would be good to get away from the whole party b.s. but until everyone decides to pull it out it won't matter, a vote for a 3rd party will just add more to Hillary's quest to take over the world. Might want to start planning on buying all the guns we've been looking at, cause they might be severly restricted soon.


----------



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

J-bass said:


> I will have to ditto the first two responses to this thread. I personally am extremely worried that this ruling in March will be but a springboard for other and more restrictive rulings to come. Looking at a nice handgun? Got your eye on a fancy assault rifle? Well, you **** well better quit looking and start buying, because March is coming up pretty quick. I'm not kidding either. We are one of the last, if not the last, 1st world country that allows its citzens the right to bear arms.(With the exception of Isreal and Switzerland.) The UN has already made significant attempts to ban guns in our country, as well as many from BOTH political parties. While the NRA is powerful, it is not enough to stop this eventual tide. The day will come when we may truly have to "bear" our arms simply to preserve the rights deemed inaliable by our founding fathers. What a sad and horrific day that will be, but should it come I hope that we will all be ready to fight. I don't know about you, but I can not side with these political fatcats, because "it aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's Son." CCR


Total agreement bro, there will come a day that we will fight again against tyranny and oppression. Only this time the good guys won't have the nukes and the bad ones won't wear red jackets....


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Pro, did you even read my post? What part about what I posted was a conspiracy? Did you know that the WTO has already overturned US law, as well the Law of the Sea Treaty has allowed the UN to overturn US policies in the ocean? It HAS HAPPENED ALREADY!!! You talk of securing the border? What has W done to secure anything? There are an estimated 30 million illegals in this country, so nothing is secure, and Bush has done nothing to secure it. Look at this quote if you don't believe me when I say partisan politics are a joke.

"No matter what happens in the presidential election, the old saying remains true: if we hold Congress' feet to the fire, ultimately freedom can prevail." Dennis Behreandt

It matters not who is in the White House, as both front runners from both parties are EQUALLY bad for this country and in very similar ways. It's like trying to determine which pile of Sh*t you want to eat. In the end, you're still eating sh*t.


proutdoors said:


> First, the UN is a joke, and I don't see them enforcing anything on America, how can they?


I seems you think of the UN being a joke just as the countries of Europe thought that the EU was a joke. You think this isn't happening? Just two months ago, Bush met with the Prime Minister of Cananda and the Pres. of Mexico to expand the SPP even further. This is what came of the meeting.

"Concieved as an executive branch initiative, without the approval of Congress, the SPP established 20 trilateral "working groups" composed of current and former government officials, academics, and corporate leaders. The groups are directed to bring about continental integration on a wide range of political, economic, and social issues, such as manufacturing, trasportation, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, agrigulture, LAW ENFORCEMENT, immigration, and health."

And this isn't even about Ron Paul, Rudy, Hillory, Mitt or anyone else. This is about doing what's best for the country. You didn't even try to address the horrific economic policies of your beloved party, or the fact the partisan politics violates the very core of what the founding fathers were after. You just come up with some bullcrap argument about this guy appointing that guy to do this. Do you even know how Republicans vote these days? Do you really know your parties agenda? Your certainly don't seem to know.

Let's face it. You're a good guide. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to government. But, you're also one of the most pridefull sons of B*tches I've ever seen, and everyone on this forum will attest to that. You cannot, will not admit that you're wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that you are. Voting for Republicans and expecting them to save the day is antiquated, assanine, and destructive.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

And to the rest, Ron Paul is NOT a third party candidate. He is running under the Republican ticket, and if we all really cared about this country and did something other than what the TV told us to do, he would be the Republican frontrunner. To dismiss him as a nobody when he stands for so much that would help so many in this and other countries is just sad. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, as a registered republican, but if, ( and almost certainly when,) he doesn't make it past that point, I will do one of the greatest things this country affords its citizens and will choose NOT to vote. I can not, and will not choose between two piles of sh*t.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

J-bass said:


> And to the rest, Ron Paul is NOT a third party candidate. He is running under the Republican ticket, and if we all really cared about this country and did something other than what the TV told us to do, he would be the Republican frontrunner. To dismiss him as a nobody when he stands for so much that would help so many in this and other countries is just sad. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, as a registered republican, but if, ( and almost certainly when,) he doesn't make it past that point, I will do one of the greatest things this country affords its citizens and will choose NOT to vote. I can not, and will not choose between two piles of sh*t.


Let's see, you chide me on not reading all of your posts, yet you seem guilty of the same. :? I acknowledged Ron Paul is a Republican candidate, I merely pointed out *once* he loses the nomination, the odds of him running as a third party candidate are fairly high. And not voting for high and mighty reasons does no more than not voting out of apathy. You silence your 'voice', if *you* can live with that, so be it.

Now, I quote:


> Let's face it. You're a good guide. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to government. But, you're also one of the most pridefull sons of B*tches I've ever seen, and everyone on this forum will attest to that. You cannot, will not admit that you're wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that you are. *Voting for Republicans and expecting them to save the day is antiquated, assanine, and destructive*.


The second post is the only correct part of this paragraph. :wink: I admit I am wrong, when I am wrong, this is NOT one of those rare times. :twisted:

Does NOT voting at all "save the day"? I see that as "antiquated, assanine, and destructive" to say the least. I appreciate your passion, I truly do, but because you and I see things differently, does not mean I, "don't know what you're talking about when it comes to government", it means I see things differently. To say there is little/no difference between democrats and republicans in FALSE, and does NOTHING to change the direction of this grand country. Democrats WILL raise taxes, WILL appoint activist judges, WILL make our military weaker, WILL increase spending (yes even more the GWB), WILL increase entitlements, WILL make Social Security worse, WILL make Kyoto a mandated protocol, WILL come after our guns, free speech, private property, family values, and a number of other daily issues, that WILL affect EACH/EVERY American in negative ways!

Now, if you chose to make attacks on my personal views, that are based on 40 years of observations and living, simply because they differ from yours, go for it. I for some reason thought you to be a reasonable articulate person, maybe I was mistaken. There, I just admitted to being WRONG! :| :roll:

PRO


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

Whoa great discussion here!!!

Savage Nation is right on about 95% of the time, and Savage is just as Irate about where this country is going as you all do. What are these conspiracy theories you are referring to, I have yet to have heard one there. 

Anyways I will NOT vote for Ron Paul because he has said that 911 was a govermnent consiracy, WTF the gov can in no way pull that off without ppl noticing, impossible. 

what Pro and others have said are very similar why fight about something we all generally believe in. 

One day we as the PEOPLE will have to fight for our rights, and when that happens we WILL prevail. So what will it take to make the People to wake up?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Not to poke fun of this problem, but I can offer a way out for everyone who is 17-42. Join my club and keep your firearm's....


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Democrats WILL raise taxes, WILL appoint activist judges, WILL make our military weaker, WILL increase spending (yes even more the GWB), WILL increase entitlements, WILL make Social Security worse, WILL make Kyoto a mandated protocol, WILL come after our guns, free speech, private property, family values, and a number of other daily issues, that WILL affect EACH/EVERY American in negative ways!


And the fact that you think Republicans wont/haven't/aren't doing the same is why we're in this mess to begin with. 
I admit that personal attacks have no bearing and for that I apologize, though I didn't really throw that many out there anyway. 
And the simple issue of Ron Paul, I started that post "And to the rest" meaning everyone besides yourself. I just thought it needed reiterating that he wasn't a third party candidate.
As almost everytime I get into a political argument these days, this experience has simply left me feeling saddened, and frustrated, and defeated yet again. Defeated by the ploys and tactics that these masterminds of the corporate world have engineered to bring about the downfall of this great nation and enslave as many people as possible. Why? Greed, pride, and above all power. It's working you know. They are currently winning the fight. I search in vain for those willing to stem the tide, but I see them not. The problems are great, the enemy strong, and the will to fight back seems all but non-existent.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

The UN is a joke? Yeah, my sides are splitting. I would suggest that you stduy up a bit more than what faux news feeds you so that you can feel patriotic because you voted for Bush. I feel no need to point out to you what is readily obvious if one looks into it. 

Once again, show me some facts to back up your assumption that Ron Paul is a waste of a vote. I bet if you go beyond the mainstream media you will find that there are millions of people ready to back him. But keep throwing out your useless banter because I agree, there is nothing like hyperbole. 

You say the issue here is about me voting for Ron Paul? I thought that this was about the upcoming ruling on the Second Ammendment? Since when do you have such a God-complex that you feel the need to dictate someone else's vote? 

Micheal Savage...please. I take my information form those who have actually dealt with the government and worked for it. Appearently the mainstream lies are good enough for you. 

So who are you voting for Pro, and how will they secure our rights and sovereignty? Did you think you would not get asked this same thing or was this just a sociopathic attempt for you to try and cherry pick a tangent subject to the thread at hand so that you could try and save face? I have told you before, and I will tell you again, show me your mettle not just your rhetoric. 

Also show me anywhere in the Founding documents that supports this invasion of Iraq. Anywhere. Show me one example of how Ron Paul's platform doesn't call for us to return to our roots. I guess you have also ignored Alan Greespans warnings lately of the corruption of the Federal Reserve that he once ran. I guess you missed where he came clean about Iraq actually being about oil and grabbing a controlling interest in their iols shares. He also tells of how the plans to invade Iraq have been around long before 9/11, about when Iraq started threatenening to use the Euro as their staple currency. 

Please Pro, enlighten me.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

"Now, if you chose to make attacks on my personal views, that are based on 40 years of observations and living, simply because they differ from yours, go for it. I for some reason thought you to be a reasonable articulate person, maybe I was mistaken. There, I just admitted to being WRONG!" -PRO


So exactly how old are you pro, you'd better be older than 40 because I am having a hard time believing you've been paying attention to this stuff since you were in pre-school or even in your teens. Are you trying to manipulate this to favor your viewpoint, because there are many people out there much older than you who have observed these things alot longer than you, and their words would not agree with yours. Many of them have had first hand experience with our behind-the-scenes government.

Yonni, can you show me any definintive proof that our government had no prior knowledge to 9/11? I would love to believe that and am waiting for any convincing evidence.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Since you asked please. 8)



> The UN is a joke? Yeah, my sides are splitting. I would suggest that you stduy up a bit more than what faux news feeds you so that you can feel patriotic because you voted for Bush. I feel no need to point out to you what is readily obvious if one looks into it.


 I rarely watch Fox News, when I do it is O'Reilly, I am proud to say I voted for Bush TWICE, because the other options would have been much worse for me and my family.



> Once again, show me some facts to back up your assumption that Ron Paul is a waste of a vote. I bet if you go beyond the mainstream media you will find that there are millions of people ready to back him. But keep throwing out your useless banter because I agree, there is nothing like hyperbole.


 What are Ron's numbers in EVERY poll out there? I will say it right here, he will finish lower than fifth in Iowa, N.H., and EVERY primary out there. How is that? I put it out here for you to come back with if I am proven wrong. Are *you* willing to make a prediction on Ron coming in the top three in any of the primaries? If not, does that making you full of nothingness?



> You say the issue here is about me voting for Ron Paul? I thought that this was about the upcoming ruling on the Second Ammendment? Since when do you have such a God-complex that you feel the need to dictate someone else's vote?


 GO back and read my posts, I said, and I'll say it again, the 2nd amendment will only be taken away through the judicial system, and the President of the United States appoints Federal Judges. You and J-bass keep bringing Ron Paul up, as if he is a serious contender for the Republican Nomination, I have gone on record to say he is NOT!



> Micheal Savage...please. I take my information form those who have actually dealt with the government and worked for it. Appearently the mainstream lies are good enough for you.


 What do *you* consider "mainstream"? I need to know in order to answer truthfully.



> So who are you voting for Pro, and how will they secure our rights and sovereignty? Did you think you would not get asked this same thing or was this just a *sociopathic* attempt for you to try and cherry pick a tangent subject to the thread at hand so that you could try and save face? I have told you before, and I will tell you again, show me your mettle not just your rhetoric.


 Right now I like Huckabee, but ANY/ALL of the Republicans are better options than ANY/ALL of the Democrats. I don't even know what you are asking/implying with your ranting, "Did you think you would not get asked this same thing or was this just a *sociopathic* attempt for you to try and cherry pick a tangent subject to the thread at hand so that you could try and save face?", so I can't/won't respond. :roll: 


> Also show me anywhere in the Founding documents that supports this invasion of Iraq. Anywhere. Show me one example of how Ron Paul's platform doesn't call for us to return to our roots. I guess you have also ignored Alan Greespans warnings lately of the corruption of the Federal Reserve that he once ran. I guess you missed where he came clean about Iraq actually being about oil and grabbing a controlling interest in their *iols *shares. He also tells of how the plans to invade Iraq have been around long before 9/11, about when Iraq started threatenening to use the Euro as their staple currency.


 The debate SHOULD not be about whether we were justified or not to go into Iraq, because we are there NOW, and the debate over whethere we should have gone in is a mute point, the question is, "what do we do NOW!"? As for Alan Greenspan's comments, I have NOT read them, nor do I see how this has anything to do with the topics we are discussing. Like I said, the debate on Iraq should no longer be on whether we should have gone in, the debate should be on what to do now that we are there. To simply walk away would put America at great peril, which would be foolish and what Ron Paul 'says' he would, even though I seriously doubt he truly would. You are right, the talks of 'Regime' change started under the Clinton Admin., long before GWB took office.



> Please Pro, enlighten me.


 I have tried, whether I have or not remains to be seen, but I asked you a question earlier, and BOTH you and J-bass, the only vocal Ron Paul supporters here, how do you explain Ron's claim that 9-11 was an inside job, and do *you* believe it was?



> I have told you before, and I will tell you again, show me your mettle not just your rhetoric


 How is that, and next time ask, not "tell" me what to do? :wink: Back at ya! _(O)_

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> "Now, if you chose to make attacks on my personal views, that are based on 40 years of observations and living, simply because they differ from yours, go for it. I for some reason thought you to be a reasonable articulate person, maybe I was mistaken. There, I just admitted to being WRONG!" -PRO
> 
> So exactly how old are you pro, you'd better be older than 40 because I am having a hard time believing you've been paying attention to this stuff since you were in pre-school or even in your teens. Are you trying to manipulate this to favor your viewpoint, because there are many people out there much older than you who have observed these things alot longer than you, and their words would not agree with yours. Many of them have had first hand experience with our behind-the-scenes government.
> 
> Yonni, can you show me any definintive proof that our government had no prior knowledge to 9/11? I would love to believe that and am waiting for any convincing evidence.


I was an extremely bright infant, I was born 40 years 6 months and 8 days ago, I started following politics when I was 6 months old. :mrgreen: I never implied I know more than others because of my age, I was giving a back-ground as to what molding my views on the topic at hand. Age has little/nothing to do with being aware of history. But, every single person is biased by how/when/where they were raised.

I see that you *are* indeed a conspiracy believer if you believe 9-11 was an inside job. That explains a lot! :roll:

PRO


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes O'Reilly is mainstream media. He can only create the appearance that he is fighting against the biggest worries we face. I would suggest that you check into other sources as well. There are many credible people at places such as JBS.org. In fact they are my favorite and had the endorsement of President Ezra Taft Benson. To hear opinions from the likes of President Bensen or Cleon Skousen,try awakeandarise.org. Some informative books are The Creature From Jekkyll Island, The Naked Capitalist, and the Naked Communist. Those are just a few of the sites that offer an excellent viewpoint from those owho have been on the inside. I have known family members to Ezra Taft Bensen, and belive me, they did not find anything funny or trivial about the UN. 
Am I a conspiracy theorist, sure, I don't take things for their face value. I do not know who did what during 9/11 but I do know too many questions remain from that day. I have read many analysis of these events even the suppossed "Debunking of 9/11" books, and to tell you the truth, the debunking does not sound near as complete to me as its counter analysis have. Sure there are many wierdo's who come up with some crazy crap. The media wants you to think it is all wiedro's but that is just not true, and one has to venture there to know it. 
Yes I referred to what you are doing as sociopathic, because you come across as wanting to be right about everything and you have shown me in this thread that you are readily willing to set snares for others so that you can jump on them for something because you can't accept that their opinions differ. You pulled out a tangent subject to what was at hand, just so you could argue a point for your own image. 
As for Ron Paul, that is who I will vote for if he makes it to that point. If not, I like Mitt somewhat, and the rest I don't really trust at this point.
There is a difference between the citizens of this nation who profess to be democrats or republicans, but that difference begins to become blurry when we analyse those politicians who profess to hold the same values as their constituents.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

You know what bothers me most about your argument PRO? It's that you're actually saying that you believe it's better to cast your vote for someone who knowingly and purposely enacts legislation that not allows for, but enables literally hundreds of millions of wage slave, or just plain slaves, throughout the 3rd world while simultaneously exporting hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs as well as technical and engineering jobs from this country!!! Not to mention a political party that has voted very strongly, and very often for the infiltration of more than 30 million illegal immigrants into the country. And let's not forget that it was Reagan who granted the fist amnesty in the 80's. 
I think that you can at least agree that this country has a lot of problems at the moment. The economy is stagnant, and about to plummet. The dollar is becoming next to worthless in the world market. Corporations are pulling out jobs by the tens of thousand to find cheaper laborers in foreign markets, who are too poor to buy any of our products, which is why our trade deficits are increasing in trillion dollar increments. We are fighting a perpetual war that is sapping a vast amount of resources. Through scare tactics and 9/11 hysteria the government has and is planning on enacting legislation that is unconstitutional and directly undermines the bill of rights. These problems are getting worse and worse, and yet we have had a Republican President for going on eight years, as well as control of congress during a part of that time as well, and yet the problems continue!!!
So call me a waste, and tell me I'm "throwing away" my vote by casting it for a man who seems to have little moral fortitude and some respect for the constitution, instead of being a no-brained sheep who casts his vote for a majority party leader. That's really radical thinking by the way. I'm sure you're the first person to think of just voting for whomever is under the heading of Republican at voting time.
I'd also like to address this ludicrous notion that boycotting the voting process is pathetic, or apathetic, or doesn't entitle you to complain or something. Having been in countries that require every citizen to vote, I understand what a privilege and honor it is to say, I disagree so strongly with both candidates, that I elect not to chose either. And I would be more proud to say that I refused to cast a vote for a man (or woman) who caused or enabled the downfall of this country than to just blame it on the liberals.
You know, that brings me to me next point. It's very convenient to just say vote for Republicans and if it doesn't pan out the way we want, we'll just blame the liberals. All the while, the liberals are doing the same with the Republicans and the country becomes a craphole.
Let me come at this from another angle. When do you hold the Republicans accountable? When do you start blaming them also? When do you finally say enough is enough and we need to look for an alternative to Rep and Dem? They've already enacted unconstitutional legislation in the patriot act. They've already allowed 30 million immigrants into the country. They've already passed countless "free trade" agreements with countless countries that enslave the poor from both nations. They've already increased the trade deficit by trillions of dollars. They've already increased the national debt to outstanding proportions. They’ve already created NAFTA and the SPP, as well as CAFTA, which are precursors to a North American Union. What more do they need to do to be tainted in the Divine Eyes of PRO? I really would like to know. Sure, democrats suck too, and they've got issues, such as the broadening of welfare, higher taxes etc., but they're just different problems, not worse. And THAT is why we need to look for a different source, a different kind of candidate, whether he be a Ron Paul or otherwise. But at this point, anything would be better than Rudy or Hillary. So please, stop saying things like democrats are worse for my family, because that’s not true as I’ve pointed out above, and start addressing the real issues we’re facing and coming up with comprehensive solutions to the problem other than, “it’s the democrats fault.”


----------



## CC (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> GO back and read my posts, I said, and I'll say it again, the 2nd amendment will only be taken away through the judicial system, and the President of the United States appoints Federal Judges. You and J-bass keep bringing Ron Paul up, as if he is a serious contender for the Republican Nomination, I have gone on record to say he is NOT!
> PRO


I agree that Ron Paul will not come close to getting the nomination from the Republican Party. I do not think that he will run as a third party candidate, but only time will tell on that issue. His popularity is growing because of his blunt honesty and Constitutional awareness. Hopefully candidates in both major parties will add some of these things to their own party platforms, that are obviously resonating with Ron Paul voters. This, in my opinion, adds value to the political process, whether it is coming from someone who is seeking the Dem / Rep nomination, or from a third party candidate. 
PRO, earlier in this debate, I suggested that a third party candidate may actually hurt the Democrats in future elections, therefore I was also insinuating that under that circumstance, YOU might actually take pleasure in people casting their votes for such a person. (I should have made that more clear previously) Under that circumstance, would you still consider someone else casting a vote for a third party, a wasted vote (if it hurt the Dems)? I understand this is not how YOU would vote.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

CC, I can/will respond to your post and questions, Nibble nuts and J-bass good luck with the tinfoil hats you have on. This 'sheep' can't handle all your fear and conspiracies.

I say a vote for a third party candidate, regardless of who it hurts/benefits is a 'wasted' vote. I most certainly believe no vote at all accomplishes NOTHING positive for ones views and values. If we do NOT like the candidates available, we need to be more pro-active in getting better candidates within the party to run and be electable to the masses.

PRO


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> CC, I can/will respond to your post and questions, Nibble nuts and J-bass good luck with the tinfoil hats you have on. This 'sheep' can't handle all your fear and conspiracies.
> 
> I say a vote for a third party candidate, regardless of who it hurts/benefits is a 'wasted' vote. I most certainly believe no vote at all accomplishes NOTHING positive for ones views and values. If we do NOT like the candidates available, we need to be more pro-active in getting better candidates within the party to run and be electable to the masses.
> 
> PRO


It's not about what you can or cannot handle, it is all about what really is and what must be done. Call it fear, call it conspiracy theory, whatever, it doesn't change what is real.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Labeling anyone with a passion for Constitutional resurrection as a "tinfoil hat" wearer is exactly what the republicans and democrats count on to keep their grip. You're a good soldier, pro. :roll:


 *\-\* *OOO* :wink:

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

And with PRO's inability to address any real issue, but only his ability to blame the democrats for everything that has gone wrong, he officially got his ass handed to him in this discussion. I only hope that all of you realize how quickly he ended the discussion when he realized he had no chance of coming out on top, and how fast he resorted to writing us off as "tin hat wearers." 
We are in great peril, and continuing on with the same types of candidates who enact the same sorts of legislation will due nothing to stem the tide of destruction that is befalling our nation. Republican or Democrat? I think it is indisputable that neither can or will do a **** thing for us.


----------



## CC (Sep 8, 2007)

J-bass said:


> We are in great peril, and continuing on with the same types of candidates who enact the same sorts of legislation will due nothing to stem the tide of destruction that is befalling our nation. Republican or Democrat? I think it is indisputable that neither can or will do a **** thing for us.


If we always do, what we have always done...we will always get, what we have always gotten. O|*


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

CC said:


> J-bass said:
> 
> 
> > We are in great peril, and continuing on with the same types of candidates who enact the same sorts of legislation will due nothing to stem the tide of destruction that is befalling our nation. Republican or Democrat? I think it is indisputable that neither can or will do a **** thing for us.
> ...


You're right on CC. That's why we need to mix it up and elect someone out of the ordinary, mainstream political field.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> You're right on CC. That's why we need to mix it up and elect someone out of the ordinary, mainstream political field.


How do *you* propose getting that done? It makes for a great bumper-sticker, but it has as much chance of happening as me turning my furnace down helping reverse Global Warming.

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > You're right on CC. That's why we need to mix it up and elect someone out of the ordinary, mainstream political field.
> 
> 
> How do *you* propose getting that done? It makes for a great bumper-sticker, but it has as much chance of happening as me turning my furnace down helping reverse Global Warming.
> ...


I never said that I expected it to happen in '08, although I wish it would. I'll tell ya, the only tool I have now is awareness. Whether it be on this forum or others, talking with co-workers, friends and family, and trying to wake people up to the fact that the two party system has utterly failed us at this point. We need to end the stigma of 3rd party candidates being crazy lunatics who have nothing to offer, because they are our only hope. And above all, we need to promote fidelity to our country and not to a party.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

So PRO, is that it? I've been waiting for a reply, but I've waited in vain. What gives?


----------

