• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Holder focusing on home grown terrorists

How is it a knockout punch that you found a quote from somebody who believes the same thing you do? Did Edgar Jones provide proof of these things? And after reading your last post, I have a confession to make. Remember earlier when I said even you weren't that stupid? I have to admit, I was wrong. Your hatred for everything American seeps out of your very pores. You don't have the faintest clue about what you're talking about. You are beyond hope. I stand by what I said earlier. You are among the vilest scum in this country. You are part of the problem. Thankfully, those brave men and women who served, whom you hold such contempt for, fought so that even pieces of trash like you have the right to spew your hatred and stupidity. That's one of the things that made this a great country. Now your ilk is doing their damndest to destroy it. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. I've already given you too much, and quite frankly, you're not worthy of it. Good bye, and piss off. My sincere hope is that some day, before you're dead, you somehow come to your senses and change. Unfortunately, I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Wow. New sniffy piece of **** king of the dolts is crowned. What kind of parents produce these insufferable, confidently ill-informed and gullible twits?
 
Wow. New sniffy piece of **** king of the dolts is crowned. What kind of parents produce these insufferable, confidently ill-informed and gullible twits?

Exactly I don't know what it is exactly that produces people like bmoron but if I had to guess I would start with public primary education combined with a lack of higher education.
 
How is it a knockout punch that you found a quote from somebody who believes the same thing you do? Did Edgar Jones provide proof of these things? And after reading your last post, I have a confession to make. Remember earlier when I said even you weren't that stupid? I have to admit, I was wrong. Your hatred for everything American seeps out of your very pores. You don't have the faintest clue about what you're talking about. You are beyond hope. I stand by what I said earlier. You are among the vilest scum in this country. You are part of the problem. Thankfully, those brave men and women who served, whom you hold such contempt for, fought so that even pieces of trash like you have the right to spew your hatred and stupidity. That's one of the things that made this a great country. Now your ilk is doing their damndest to destroy it. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. I've already given you too much, and quite frankly, you're not worthy of it. Good bye, and piss off. My sincere hope is that some day, before you're dead, you somehow come to your senses and change. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

I'm talking about government policy moron not individual service men called to serve. Those individuals have no idea what the true purpose of their service is. You sound like a ******* commissar at a communist reeducation camp. "You criticize the party, you criticize the people"

Did MacArthur hold contempt for serviceman by saying what he did? How about Eisenhower? Did they have a clue?

You're just another brainwashed lemming.

As far as atrocities yeah as much as it pains you not every American servicemen is honorable, In other news Santa Claus isn't real. Sorry to have to make you grow up so quick.

We can start from the beginning of the country or as recently as Afghanistan...how about somewhere near the middle.

Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
—- Col. John Milton Chivington

Covington was a Methodist pastor by the way but that's a whole different evil, we won't go there.


The Sand Creek Massacre summary: On November 29, 1864, seven hundred members of the Colorado Territory militia embarked on an attack of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indian villages. The militia was led by U.S. Army Col. John Chivington, a Methodist preacher, as well as a free mason. After a night of heavy drinking by the soldiers, Chivington ordered the massacre of the Indians. Over two-thirds of the slaughtered and maimed were women and children. This atrocity has been known as the Sand Creek Massacre ever since.

Chivington lied to them first...you know that honor thing.

Covington then rose and addressed Black Kettle and the other Cheyenne and Arapaho chiefs at the meeting: ‘I am not a big war chief but all the soldiers in this country are at my command. My rule of fighting white men or Indians is fight them until they lay down their arms and submit to military authority.’ He added that the Indians could go to Fort Lyon ‘when they are ready to do that.’ It had to be a complete surrender.

Of course when he got to Sandy Creek all he found were old men, women, and kids because the Natives having trusted him had sent their braves out hunting, he of course slaughtered them.

To finish my point lucidly; the monument that was out there read " Sandy Creek Battle Ground" until it was changed to " Sandy Creek Massacre Site" sometime in the 2000's. I guess by people who are either " the vilest scum in the country" as you say or as I like to say, honest.
 
Exactly I don't know what it is exactly that produces people like bmoron but if I had to guess I would start with public primary education combined with a lack of higher education.
Perfect projection. I knew you would do it, with the higher education twist.
 
Wow. New sniffy piece of **** king of the dolts is crowned. What kind of parents produce these insufferable, confidently ill-informed and gullible twits?

That's what we get in our 'new order' of education. Elfie, Polo whatever they go by, it's still tin hat liberalism without the counterbalancing meds. It's all they know and if you don't subscribe to the anti-American socialist diatribe, you're the stupid one ..not them. Like Rush said, they are taught from childhood that conservatives are three-headed monsters that need to be treated as such.

"insufferable, confidently ill-informed and gullible twits"....as good a description as I have heard from anyone without actually 'name calling'.
Karma to ya CD
 
You do know that in our eternal 'goodness' we had been provoking the Germans for years in the Atlantic helping the Brits and engaging their supply ships hoping to get a response from them right? The attack on Pearl Harbor was a dream come true for the oligarchs

Did you really just say we were "provoking" Nazi germany as they sought to conquer the world? You have raised equivocative unilateral thought to a new level.


And the knockout punch

We Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an alltime record for instantaneous mass slaughter.

------------------ February 1946 One War is Enough
by Edgar L. Jones

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/jones.htm

I'm talking about government policy moron not individual service men called to serve.
.

The diatribe by one of your evident heroes seems to be at odds with your self purported goal.

Regardless, in times of war undesirable conduct happens. Some because men of undesirable character are able to act on out their predisposition to do the undesirable with no or minimal consequences. Some because the horrors of war generate undesirable impulses in otherwise decent men.
 
And the knockout punch

We Americans have the dangerous tendency in our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an alltime record for instantaneous mass slaughter.

------------------ February 1946 One War is Enough
by Edgar L. Jones

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/jones.htm


The tea party represents nothing of the ideals of the founders. They are the same old isolationist, xenophobic, racist element that has always been with us. What exactly is the Tea Parties position regarding foreign policy?......I thought so.

Make up your mind. Which one is wrong?

 
Last edited:
Make up your mind. Which one is wrong?



You see Ron, it's racist to mind our own business. Also, it's racist to participate in global conflicts. The only non-racist thing to do is give our wealth to the whole world equally.
 
You see Ron, it's racist to mind our own business. Also, it's racist to participate in global conflicts. The only non-racist thing to do is give our wealth to the whole world equally.

But we have to let them decide what "equally" means or we are imposing our imperialistic goals upon them. Some are, indeed, more equal than others.
 
You see Ron, it's racist to mind our own business. Also, it's racist to participate in global conflicts. The only non-racist thing to do is give our wealth to the whole world equally.

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more.

Ten Years After, 1971
 
Have to give Barack Hussein's jack-booted thugs something to do

aa.jpg
 
http://joeilling.com/2011/12/12/the-making-of-an-american-gestapo-2/

The Making of an American Gestapo?

Posted on December 12, 2011

A long time ago the authors of our Constitution, who’d felt the bitter frustration and pain of tyranny, were desperately trying to convince skeptics that the document they’d crafted would give everyone, in perpetuity, what they’d recently fought and bled for. Their document would be a written guaranty against tyranny.

Those men, whom we now call the Founders, came up with something that no nation had ever come-up with before in history. They scrapped the notion that an accident of birth could make one man superior to another and wrote that every man had a God-given dignity equal to that of any other man. And more importantly and radically, they vested the nation’s political sovereignty, not in a king or an aristocracy, but in each man equally.

And so it was that personal dignity became the cornerstone upon which all they constructed rested. They laid that cornerstone on soil stained by the blood of those who fought and died for their improbable dream … self-governance.

The document they authored to achieve that dream they called the Constitution. Their aim was to make iron-clad-sure that the political sovereignty of each and every man, and each and every former colony, was protected forever from a central government so authoritarian and rapacious that it became oppressive. The Constitution they were selling was to be every man’s guaranty in writing against that.

However many felt the original document fell short of that mark. The skeptics wanted a federal government that was explicitly forbidden from doing things such as limiting speech, establishing a religion, or forcing one to testify against oneself in court.

As a consequence, the federalists amended their constitution with ten items, later dubbed the Bill of Rights. Although these additions didn’t convince all the doubting Thomases, such as Patrick Henry of Virginia, they did do the trick. The colonies ratified the Constitution and The United States of America was founded.

It worked, perhaps better than those who wrote it had hoped for. Why? Because they wrote their Constitution in plain English. They wrote-out how things would work using simple words and common phrases that everyone could easily understand.

People could see, for instance, why setting up three co-equal and competing branches of government was a good idea. They could see that the coordination of commerce between the various states was both logical and necessary. And they could see that by limiting the federal government’s powers in writing they could give the ultimate guaranty of liberty to everyone.

Unfortunately , a nation founded on the written word can be destroyed by how those words are defined. Whoever gains the power to define can wield it to reap supreme mastery, limitless wealth and preeminent status.

Some people today think that’s exactly what’s happened. The words and phrases of the Constitution have been argued and interpreted in so many ways over the years as to become convoluted, contradictory and subject to judicial whim. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that our judges and political class are talking about same document those guys wrote in 1789.

For example, here’s what the Fourth Amendment says about protecting us from the government getting its nose in our personal affairs:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That’s straightforward enough. And if you listen closely you can still hear the founders’ profound respect for personal dignity come through. It all comes down to an individual’s right to privacy from unreasonable intrusions by a government. After all, how can one be free, how can one enjoy the blessings of liberty if one has no privacy?

But that was then and this is now. So let’s take a section of that personal guaranty against tyranny to SeaTac International airport where you can wait with fellow passengers to be herded like sheep through a collection of electronic devices that x-ray your luggage or see through your clothes. It’s uncomfortably close to a scene from a Keystone Cops movie.

At some point during this ordeal you might start thinking that there’s a more efficient way to do what they’re doing. After all, if they’re looking for bad guys, shouldn’t they look for guys that fit that description?

This thought might even lead you to more seditious thoughts, such as why are those TSA officers feeling-up a 90 year old granny? Why are they conducting a full body search on a disabled person who couldn’t walk past the scanners? Or why are they traumatizing a nine-year old girl simply because of where she stood in a line?

This might even get you upset enough to exercise your right to free speech (another guaranty of that Constitution, see Amendment #1). You might even become so incensed that you protest the insanity by producing your copy of the 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search.

No? You won’t do it? Why not? Because you don’t want your name on the “no fly” list! You don’t want to be grounded for eternity because some bureaucrat took offense at your protestations.

So like the rest of us, you’ll not even mutter a meek criticism of those TSA police look-alikes, who, despite their uniforms and their appellation officer fit none of the criteria and have none of the training required for a real officer.

But is that any reason to call the T.S.A. a Gestapo? After all they’re just trying to protect us. It’s not like they set out to subvert our Constitution. True enough, but other things are true as well.

Does anybody else find it spooky that we’re seeing the architecture for a national police force put in place right before our eyes? This is precisely how Herman Goring and Heinrich Himmler created their national police force in Germany where none had previously existed. They called it the Gestapo.

And it’s also true that the political and bureaucratic evolution of such matters invariably produces unintended consequences. Could it be our nation’s future will see TSA hives in train stations, airports of all description, bus stations, seaports and electric generating stations?

If so, by then it would be too late to do much to reverse the situation. Like Ronald Reagan once said, the closest thing to eternal life we’ll see on earth is a government program. Will our kids and their kids and their kids’ kids inherit what amounts to a national police force, a Gestapo ofsorts, directed by faceless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?

One of these unintended consequences has already played-out. That’s the one that’s shredded the dignity of each and every one of us who’s been subjected to the federal government’s mis-guided attempt to thwart terrorists in its war on terror … a war against a concept which begs this question: How do you know when it’s over? How do you declare victory against a concept? When the word terror is vanquished?

Here’s another one of those unintended consequences. It’s taking shape along with the formation of our national police. It’s the unionization of the TSA, which will lead to its permanent enshrinement in our galaxy of federal entitlements and rights.

But of course not everyone will find this odious. Some will benefit from it. Take the thousands of TSA employees who will see higher salaries and benefits; or the government unions that will reap handsome dues payments; or the politicians who support those unions and who, in turn, will receive their lucrative support.

So the next time you visit SeaTac, take your copy of your Constitution with you. After all, it’s your guaranty against such things as unreasonable searches and government oppression. And, it’s in writing.
 
obama-as-hitler3_zpsffdb2f47.jpg



future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslim.jpg


change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here are six conundrums of socialism in the United States of America :

1. America is capitalistic and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the Age of Morons, Mooches, Marxists and Muslims.

You really believe that stuff? Have you come out of your cave in the last 40 years?

If you haven't you missed the watershed moment for the destruction of the middle class and the poor in America. That was in 1980 when a ****** third rate actor from California became President, the worst this country has ever had. Things will never be the same.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/21/rich-poor-widest-gap/9351639/

The United States of America — the land of opportunity — has the fourth most uneven income distribution in the developed world. Chile has the most unequal distribution of income, while Iceland tops the list as the most egalitarian.



http://hnn.us/article/5544


I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?

Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.

The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.

Reagan's mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of sentiment. In the early twentieth century, the old were the poorest sector of the American population. The horrors of old age--increasing sickness, loss of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death--were in that era accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around. The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can do something significant to improve people's lives. Reagan, philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back into poverty in old age.

Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak. He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was to break the air traffic controllers' union. It was not important in and of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.

eagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.



http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html

The idiot didn't even know his own HUD secretary........enuff said.

Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions – the major advocates for metropolitan concerns. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: “How are you, Mr. Mayor? I’m glad to meet you. How are things in your city?”

Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers. Fortunately for Reagan, the “HUD Scandal” wasn’t uncovered until he’d left office.
 
I think it is moderately humorous that anyone that backs one party or the other blames their opposition for the destruction of the middle class. The middle class destruction began long before Reagan, and it seems with every election, the middle class continues to shrink. Under this administration, it seems like it is a goal. But hey, no worries. The lemming will continue to vote D or R, believing that either party actually cares.
 
His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions – the major advocates for metropolitan concerns. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, saying: “How are you, Mr. Mayor? I’m glad to meet you. How are things in your city?”.

...and there you have it folks, you WILL kowtow to our demands or be the center of our ire...you choose ! The gays have even learned how to take up the Progressive mantra with their mafia like tactics. From rewriting history to just simple out and out prevarication, it's all good as long as it's for the cause.

Oh...we ain't got no stinkin' caves down here for me to crawl out of, you can ask my wife.

View attachment 179
 
Instead of attacking Chip why don't you take a stab at the inconsistencies ponted out in your previous posts? That question is rhetorical....we all know the answer because we've all read the liberal play book.
 
Hey, "Greatest Generation", you see that world free of Nazi control? You didn't save that, someone else saved that for you.
 
PoloMalo43 wasted 4 pages, and said nothing.
 
Here are six conundrums of socialism in the United States of America :

1. America is capitalistic and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the Age of Morons, Mooches, Marxists and Muslims.
This is excellent. Invisible Karma to you.
 
PoloMalo43,

Can you name a country that innrecorded history was able to tax its self into prosperity?
 
Instead of attacking Chip why don't you take a stab at the inconsistencies ponted out in your previous posts? That question is rhetorical....we all know the answer because we've all read the liberal play book.
Make up your mind. Which one is wrong?
Busted again.



It's like a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it. Problem is that it's people like her who are running the government.
 
Last edited:
The Soviet Union defeated Japan after they dropped their A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing a conservative total of 225,000 civilian men, women, and children. I guess they weren't interested in perpetuating a self-described myth of 'exceptionalism' for their history books.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"

- John Blutarsky, 1962 -
 
Since you like history so much I hope you're enjoying the Brian Williams propaganda piece on NBC right now concerning the "greatest generation" and American "goodness" You know since you like mythology so much. No disrespect to any service member that sacrificed in any war but we all know American involvement on D-day was initiated after the Russians had destroyed 70 to 80% of the Nazi military,we just wanted to make sure after they did all the heavy lifting they didn't get to keep Western Europe.

Of course we're taught how we 'won the war in Europe' right? Is that what they taught you in one of those 'education' camps you guys like to ascribe to liberals, comrade?
.

Exactly. 180,000 Americans were killed by a non-existent German army.

You are truly a piece of ****. I have no respect for you,or your opinion. I hope you get help for your mental problems.
 
Top