90 replies to this topic

[BlindMessiah]

Plainbob13 on Sep 1 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

No pal. You  are the dreamer. What you want will never happen so long as humans live.

Of course it won't happen. I didn't say it wouldn. I made those statements when you said I wanted to live in a world ruled by tyrants. Once again you distort the truth.

Quote

And as for being stupid you got that handled. You proved it when you called FDR a tyrant.

And you prove it when you said,

Quote

Wow he served 3 terms. It was 3 terms not 4.

Quote

So keep wearing those shades and hope the world stays rosie for ya.

And you keep on supporting the genocide of a quarter million innocent women and children.

[BlindMessiah]

AROCES on Sep 1 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

Nice thought, now wake up and come back to earth.
A lot of great men has led the Nation to prosperity, just that those who got left behind or failed to get in the boat normally would blame someone else(specially the President) but themselves.

I'm on earth thank you. I never said those were a reality or would become one.

Of course great men have led this nation. Thomas Jefferson is a hero of mine.

[AROCES]

BlindMessiah on Sep 1 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

FDR served four terms and died in office, so no.

Meaning, he got  reelected 4 times and did not stay in power indefnitely, right?

Quote

Jackson launched an illegal war to wipe out native Americans whe ncongress voted against the war. Not my fault he wasn't impeached.

Yes, not your fault indeed if impeachement was not seen as a result or something he deserves.

[acidhead]

This is what Ron Paul warned about but they went and elected more CFR members to screw the economy more.

The biggest differnece between then and now is that the USA was the world's greatest creditor nation. the world owed the USA a hell of a lot more than we owed them.. in fact, the USA owned 60 % of the world economy in 1970... today the USA is the world's greatest debtor nation. we owe other countries a lot more than they owe us.. today the USA controls just over 20% of the world economy.. the USA is going broke...

In the seventies stagflation was the adjustment neccessary to bring prices in line with the higher fuel costs.. today's stagflation is the adjustment necessary to decrease the cost of overwhelming debt(inflation makes yesterday's debt cheaper). this is a big and and possibly fatal difference..

Friends who recently visited the carribean reported that it was difficult to pass dollars as most people would not accept them as payment. this should be the canary in the coal mine to all americans.

[AROCES]

acidhead43 on Sep 1 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

This is what Ron Paul warned about but they went and elected more CFR members to screw the economy more.

The biggest differnece between then and now is that the USA was the world's greatest creditor nation. the world owed the USA a hell of a lot more than we owed them.. in fact, the USA owned 60 % of the world economy in 1970... today the USA is the world's greatest debtor nation. we owe other countries a lot more than they owe us.. today the USA controls just over 20% of the world economy.. the USA is going broke...

In the seventies stagflation was the adjustment neccessary to bring prices in line with the higher fuel costs.. today's stagflation is the adjustment necessary to decrease the cost of overwhelming debt(inflation makes yesterday's debt cheaper). this is a big and and possibly fatal difference..

Friends who recently visited the carribean reported that it was difficult to pass dollars as most people would not accept them as payment. this should be the canary in the coal mine to all americans.

Won't that be good then that the USA won't be the imperialist, war mongering, big brother, controlling, bad image and oil sucking nation anymore?
Let's pass it on to whoever comes out on top and let's see how happy the ANTI USA crowd will be with whoever rise up as the new super power.

[acidhead]

AROCES on Sep 1 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

Won't that be good then that the USA won't be the imperialist, war mongering, big brother, controlling, bad image and oil sucking nation anymore?
Let's pass it on to whoever comes out on top and let's see how happy the ANTI USA crowd will be with whoever rise up as the new super power.

so be it then..

.. its not my problem nor should it be yours..

Edited by acidhead43, 01 September 2008 - 07:12 PM.

[AROCES]

acidhead43 on Sep 1 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

so be it then..

.. its not my problem nor should it be yours..

Meaning you be hoping you get swallowed last, right?

[BlindMessiah]

AROCES on Sep 1 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

Meaning, he got  reelected 4 times and did not stay in power indefnitely, right?

He nullified his constitutional limits. He had supreme authority over the nation. That makes him a monarch. He was serving indefinitely. There's no telling how long he'd have served had he not fallen out of good health. He started a program that resulted in the murder of a quarter million innocent women and children, that makes him a tyrant.

Quote

Yes, not your fault indeed if impeachement was not seen as a result or something he deserves.

Let's be clear. Had the situation been dealt with properly, he'd have been impeached and arrested. He fought an illegal genocidal war against native Americans. What part of this don't you understand?

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Sep 1 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

He nullified his constitutional limits. He had supreme authority over the nation. That makes him a monarch. He was serving indefinitely. There's no telling how long he'd have served had he not fallen out of good health. He started a program that resulted in the murder of a quarter million innocent women and children, that makes him a tyrant.

And, rightfully, it was his own party that moved to limit terms to eight years. I appreciate that about the Democratic party.

[BlindMessiah]

Incorrigible1 on Sep 1 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

And, rightfully, it was his own party that moved to limit terms to eight years. I appreciate that about the Democratic party.

Term limits is certainly a good thing, but the man was a tyrant as I'm sure you would at least partially agree.

[Incorrigible1]

BlindMessiah on Sep 1 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

Term limits is certainly a good thing, but the man was a tyrant as I'm sure you would at least partially agree.

Aye, I would.

[Plainbob13]

"The United States, one of the first countries of the modern era to have elected political offices, placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951."

His party choose to nominate him. There was no LAWS that said he could not run. It was  a tradition started by Washington who didn't want to serve a 3rd term.  And if we use your wraped logic Lincoln would have been a tyrant also.

[Incorrigible1]

Plainbob13 on Sep 1 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

"The United States, one of the first countries of the modern era to have elected political offices, placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951."

His party choose to nominate him. There was no LAWS that said he could not run. It was  a tradition started by Washington who didn't want to serve a 3rd term.  And if we use your wraped logic Lincoln would have been a tyrant also.

Plainbob, do you think it's a bad thing constitutional restraints were placed upon the presidency to two terms?

[Plainbob13]

Incorrigible1 on Sep 1 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Plainbob, do you think it's a bad thing constitutional restraints were placed upon the presidency to two terms?

No. But to call one of the better presidents of the USA a tyrant  does.

[Incorrigible1]

Plainbob13 on Sep 1 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

No. But to call one of the better presidents of the USA a tyrant  does.

He was the last to be elected to a fourth term................