States petitioning to secede from union, page 15

reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?

reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

---

never gonna get and real proof
just rants

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The Indians of North America were also unable to provide proof at the time,
That The United States of America was taking away their livelihood.

got any evidence to support that claim??

'cos I'm pretty sure them getting moved from pillar to post, chucked out of reservations as they became wanted by the white men, various wars and dishonoured treaties were enough proof for them when they went to Washington to try to sort that shirt out on various occasions in the 18-20th centuries.

See this is what actual "evidence" looks like - you should try to learn more about it

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

this was the quote

The federal gov't has, or it's trying to = give the "waterways" control to the UN in the sea treaty - which would include the gulf and the Mississippi River.

it says give control.
there was nothing on that link about giving away or giving control.
i will wait for you to try to prove it

Can you handle it if I do not want to respond?

If you are going to kick the dog or abuse the family I will,
but I am growing bored with
the Lewis and Clark spreading political correctness down the water ways of America.

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?

Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?

Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.

edit on 13-11-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)

I know I said I would leave this thread alone, and I know this could lead to a total derail of this thread (but this thread's a stinker, so I'm not gonna feel bad about it) but...

Got any evidence there that Obama's a socialist through and through?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The Indians of North America were also unable to provide proof at the time,
That The United States of America was taking away their livelihood.

got any evidence to support that claim??

'cos I'm pretty sure them getting moved from pillar to post, chucked out of reservations as they became wanted by the white men, various wars and dishonoured treaties were enough proof for them when they went to Washington to try to sort that shirt out on various occasions in the 18-20th centuries.

See this is what actual "evidence" looks like - you should try to learn more about it

edit on 13-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

You kicked my butt,
and showed me.
My 13th grandmothers hat hangs in the Mayflower museum
what would I know about getting my butt kicked or kicking Indian butt.
And oh they married the long hunters, look it up when you have time.

reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

---

but but but
fox news said so

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?

When you can prove he is not half white!
For the record I have accepted that a native Hawaiian been was elected into office,
unless you can prove he was not born there?

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?

Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.

edit on 13-11-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)

I know I said I would leave this thread alone, and I know this could lead to a total derail of this thread (but this thread's a stinker, so I'm not gonna feel bad about it) but...

Got any evidence there that Obama's a socialist through and through?

Team Obama socialist ideas

reply to post by Rezlooper

---

Mark Hendrickson, Contributor
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.

Op/Ed

7/26/2012 @ 3:39PM |34,491 views

See that lil "Op/Ed" ? That means it's an OPINION article, not "proof" of anything....

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by Rezlooper

---

Mark Hendrickson, Contributor
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.

Op/Ed

7/26/2012 @ 3:39PM |34,491 views

See that lil "Op/Ed" ? That means it's an OPINION article, not "proof" of anything....

Yeah, he was just blowin' smoke, huh? Even though he's an economist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. All those executive orders are from fantasy land? You probably think Obama is the most democratic middle of the road president we've ever had.

reply to post by Rezlooper

---

Thanks for the vision
now I can't get that song out of my head.

reply to post by Rezlooper

---

I'm sorry, but Mark Hendrickson is grasping at straws.

First off, he admits Obama is not a socialist. Apparently he's a 'Leninist-Marxist.'

Then, he claims that Obama is specifically emulating Lenin by 'striving to increase state control over...energy, healthcare, and education...' and so on. There are multiple problems with this. First, the idea that anyone who nationalizes anything is attempting to channel Lenin is absurd. Are the British emulating Lenin with their NHS? Did the New Zealand government consider Lenin when they decided to nationalize their rail system? Was Portugal being run by Lenin disciples when they decided to nationalize their banks?

The answer is of course not. And yet Hendrickson makes the claim that Obama is consciously 'mimicking Lenin's policies' by nationalizing industries. Nothing but weasel words with no substance.

Other problems (besides the fact Hendrickson seems to draw all of his 'evidence' from the articles he's written for his Center For Vision and Values think tank)? Hendrickson's evidence is flimsy, and Obama isn't even doing what Hendrickson claims he's doing. Hendrickson cites such things as raising taxes and providing energy subsidies as evidence that Obama is nationalizing the transportation and energy industries. This plain doesn't make sense. The problem is that Hendrickson's mind is already made up that Obama is a Marxist-Leninist, and he is spending the article attempting to prove this foregone conclusion via whatever connections - however tenuous - he can draw.

Next, he attempts to claim that Obama is following Karl Marx's 10 steps to socialize a country's economy. The problem here is that, once again, the connections he draws are tenuous at best, and fanciful at worst.

1. State control of productive property. Hendrickson's example is that that Obama and Congress are 'thwarting the development of domestic energy supplies' via regulations. The problem is that regulations do not equal state control. By Hendrickson's logic in this statement, any regulation on any industry is a Marxist-Leninist scheme. Also, Obama is not unique in being for stricter regulations for certain industries.

2. Progressive income taxes. First off, Obama didn't 'create' the progressive or graduated income tax in America. Does that mean that every President and Congressman since its inception has been a willing accomplice to a Leninist-Marxist takeover of America? Hendrickson cites Obama's 'obsession' (there's another weasel word) with raising the taxes on certain brackets as evidence that he's embraced Marx's 10 step plan, but this just doesn't add up.

3. Abolition of inheritance. Hendrickson claims that by supporting estate taxes, Obama is supporting this 'plank' of the plan. But how? There's a wide difference between taxing inheritances and abolishing inheritances. Obama obviously does not support abolishing inheritances, ergo, he isn't actively pursuing this 'step.'

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Hendrickson uses Obama's alleged crackdown on offshore tax havens as an example of this. Flimsy. Hendrickson claims that Obama is unfairly seeking to tax multinational corporations (confiscating the property of emigrants), but what he leaves out is that those multinational corporations are being incorporated by American citizens as a way to avoid paying taxes (so they're not really emigrants after all). Not to mention I fail to see any indication, anywhere, of Obama seizing the assets of 'rebels.' Hendrickson's whole point falls apart here. He is literally doing backflips to try to come up with some scenario to make Obama's policies fit into this 'plank.'

5. Centralization of the country's financial system. He claims that Dodd-Frank is a 'step' in this direction. He has no other evidence. For those who don't know, Dodd-Frank increases government oversight in things like derivatives trading. It does nothing to nationalize banks. Once again, he's doing backflips to make his case.

6. State control of means of communication and transportation. As evidence of state control of communication, he claims that the Obama administration has 'denounced' Fox News and wants to revive the 'Fairness Doctrine' (which, even if it was brought back, would do nothing to nationalize media). That's it. I can't make this stuff up. As for transportation, he cites the auto bailout (started under Obama's predecessor, Bush), Obama's high-speed rail plans (denied funding; no chance of it actually happening), and Obama's vocal support of green transportation alternatives. So, basically, because the Obama administration dislikes Fox News and says they like bicycles, Hendrickson takes that to mean they control all communications and transportation.

Running out of characters, so remaining points will be addressed in the next post.

reply to post by rickm

---

I think you responded to the wrong person. Or you just missed my sarcasm completely.

Let's give you another swing at it.

reply to post by Rudy2shoes

---

it just proves you are wrong and you will believe anything that is forked into your face

reply to post by Rezlooper

---

sorry, but the racist birthers just can't handle that he is the president
he is no socialist.
what industries has the government taken over since he came into office?
i will tell you
none.
it's just a rant from the the fascist right.

reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

---

following with your last paragraph, perhaps you should read this ... or ... this ... or maybe you missed the big divide over the "death tax" (inheritance).

Ron Paul: My Revolution is Not Over: (Give \'em hell Ron!)
  Posted 16 days ago with 81 member flags

Paul Delegates Claim 5 State Plurality & Will Nominate Ron Paul From Floor
  Posted 14 days ago with 55 member flags

Lawyers for Ron Paul threaten to arrest Romney in tampa
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

Don\'t attack Iran, Russia starkly warns Israel and U.S.
  Posted 2 days ago with 43 member flags

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats
  Posted 4 days ago with 38 member flags

TEXAS Billboard: \'SEALs Removed One Threat To America, Remove The Other In November\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 33 member flags

Israel is thinking of using EMP / nuclear weapons against Iran
  Posted 1 days ago with 28 member flags

DNC Proceeds With 2-Hour Islamic \'Jumah\' Prayers After Rejecting Cardinal\'s Blessing (And You Won\'t
  Posted 14 days ago with 24 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: