Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Let's say that was the plan. What the hell do you want to do about it? You honestly think that voting some socialist in office is going to change the agenda? Be for real.

I am not necessarily advocating for a "socialist" but I will have to agree with you, we have a Democratic party that has their head up to their neck in the present administration goals, so it makes no difference who comes into power, the agendas are the same.

I already noticed that since the new congress took power and they have not done a darn thing to help We the people.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by marg6043]

Look, everyone likes to lay the blame on Bush, but this crap has been going on for the last 60 years!! From the end of WW2, to the present, this country has been headed in the direction that it's currently going.

While Bush certainly hasn't done anything to suspend it, he certainly isn't the cause of it.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
While Bush certainly hasn't done anything to suspend it, he certainly isn't the cause of it.

He has been the most softer one to be influenced into the pushing of the last agendas faster and more blatantly than any other one before him.

We are living dangerous times in our nation's history.

As far as using nuclear weapons, I can't say that we would never use them because we used atomic weapons in the second world war. However, that is not an indicting fact because it was used as a way to end a war. Hell, we'd probably still be fighting Japan had we not done it.

They were regrouping for another round of fighting when we dropped the bombs.

In the case of Iran, I don't think that such a scenario would take place unless it was imminent that Iran had them and was going to use them. I personally, at least at this point, don't think Iran has any type of nuclear capability at all. I suspect that if they had, they would have used them by now.

Originally posted by neformore


I read the article. So lets deny a bit of ignorance.

Yeah lets do only it is your ingornace not mine. Had you read and under stood what was said you could have realized the 9 was part of a preceding sentence made as a statement. I then followed the preceding statement with full clarification stating 5 dis dnot even vote.

Hell 5 of them were not even asked the question.

Therfore the author is making an assumption and you are jumping on his bandwagon that has no wheels.:

[edit on 6/7/2007 by shots]

Educate yourselves on Ron Paul and vote for him, hes the only constitutionalist in the whole race. Not every candidate is a puppet, the puppets get all the time and funding, the people who are real are always kept in the dark, so no wonder most people dont know what Ron Paul is all about.

For anyone who has been involved in the Truth movement for a long enough time will know about Ron Paul and what he stands for. He has been a very vocal speaker against the corruption of big banks, big government, big business, he plans on abolishing the Federal Reserve, I remember watching a video of him a few years ago giving a speech at the Austin town hall, he said "the globalists believe in one world government". He is for the Truth, and he is the only real candidate to come around in a long time, and he has already shown thru his backround with the Truth movement, that he stands for the people, and the people are supporting him overwhelmingly, in the last debate, he had 70 percent of the support in the polls. They let him talk for only 6 minutes, but he got a round of applause for every single thing he said.

Ron Paul is the best chance America has got. Certainly not Hilary and Romney and Mccain, and certainly not that traitor, the son of a mob boss Rudy G.

Originally posted by Id123
Please forgive if I seem daft, I am from UK and dont know much about US politics.I thought this was important

You quoted from the "World Socialist website"...

Their claims and articles are akind to "Pravda, Rense.com, and Alex Jones"....a lot of claims and not enough facts...

That's a Communist website which promotes another "worker's revolution"...

Perhaps we should start taking the claims from the Aztlan website seriously too huh?....

Show me specifically where any of them said nuclear strike....

When they say all options are on the table they are talking about military attack, but they don't say specifically with nukes. Bunker busters maybe, but not nuclear missiles....

The people who work for the World Socialist website are spinmasters at this sort of thing, so they try to get people to vote "for Communists, i mean "socialist revolutionaries"...

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Muaddib]

This isn't good. I want to vote Republican, but not if the candidate is going to have an itchy trigger finger on the nuke button the whole time they are in office. Truman only authorized the atomic bombing of Japan when it became obvious that the Japanese would fight to the bitter end if it came to an invasion of the home islands and too many American lives would be lost. Iran today isn't nearly the threat Japan was then. They would fold in about the same time as Saddams forces if it came to invasion. They wouldn't use nukes anyway, because they would be contaminating the entire middle east and the oil fields would become useless causing a global energy crisis.

Originally posted by animekenji
This isn't good. I want to vote Republican, but not if the candidate is going to have an itchy trigger finger on the nuke button

That is not necessarily true> please keep in mind the article is sourced from a communist website. Then also keep in mind that 5 were not even asked the question so no one knows what their answer would be. This is just another form of propaganda in this case so let it go nothing to see here