American Pride...

pandabear · Oct 26, 2007

Erniedytn said:
Actually my man...I do not get my info from the mainstream media...they are nothing but pawns to the government. I am well aware of the Oklahoma City bombing....it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, or foreign affairs. I believe my opinion is very informed and I have done my homework on this subject, so don't preach to me. This fucking government is run by criminals...period. They wanted to invade Afghanistan for the oil routes, and Iraq for the oil supply.... 9/11 was their excuse...and FYI I smoke my fare share of doobies.

oil routes?? oil im sorry to say is shipped by sea .

pandabear · Oct 26, 2007

Erniedytn said:
Actually my man...I do not get my info from the mainstream media...they are nothing but pawns to the government. I am well aware of the Oklahoma City bombing....it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, or foreign affairs. I believe my opinion is very informed and I have done my homework on this subject, so don't preach to me. This fucking government is run by criminals...period. They wanted to invade Afghanistan for the oil routes, and Iraq for the oil supply.... 9/11 was their excuse...and FYI I smoke my fare share of doobies.

lastly E if we wanted cheap oil it would have been much cheaper to purchase it than spend hand over fist in the war.

im telling you man there's people everywhere feeding us lies.im smokin a dube as well to contemplate this further

silk · Oct 26, 2007

medicineman said:
I don't have the time or energy for that, but tell me what I said isn't true. We do have military bases on their lands. We do take their resourses, paying their governments, but the people, just like here, get squat for those resourses. I did not miss 911, although the US has had bases in Saudi Arabia since the early '90's and it was 19 Saudies that attacked. The Saudi people are poor as dirt while the Shieks drive around in Bentlys and Rolls Royces, all from US oil Money. So isn't this a US foriegn policy, Pay the Shieks and royals for the oil while the people eat dirt. The oil companies and the US government are in direct cahoots, this is the plundering I was referring to.

Ah so clarity is important to you. My response which you attacked was directed at Erniedytn. Plundering and paying aren't the same thing. Your carelessness with words indicates to me that you either don't know what you are talking about or you are purposefully trying to make a skewed point. I was NOT talking about what situations may have caused the 911 attack; you may recall the 1993 bombing as well.
I was addressing what Erniedytn said about the role of terrorism as a result of invasion of 2 countries. You need to clarify for yourself what the points are. The facts show that countries were invaded after the attack. Not the other way around. I generally agree with you but you aren't addressing what I am talking about. You missed the point...

medicineman · Oct 26, 2007

silk said:
Ah so clarity is important to you. My response which you attacked was directed at Erniedytn. Plundering and paying aren't the same thing. Your carelessness with words indicates to me that you either don't know what you are talking about or you are purposefully trying to make a skewed point. I was NOT talking about what situations may have caused the 911 attack; you may recall the 1993 bombing as well.
I was addressing what Erniedytn said about the role of terrorism as a result of invasion of 2 countries. You need to clarify for yourself what the points are. The facts show that countries were invaded after the attack. Not the other way around. I generally agree with you but you aren't addressing what I am talking about. You missed the point...

OK....................

iblazethatkush · Oct 26, 2007

Your missing the point Pandabear. Go back and read my original post(4th page 4th one down) Terrorism is a just a tool they use to control you........
What Erniedtyn was refering to was the believe that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 not terrorists.....
Even if we pretend for a minute that a couple towelheads with box cutters brought down the twin towers :roll:

Being in Iraq and Afghanistan is just creating more terrorists. I thought this was supposed to be a "war on terror", last I checked Iraq wasn't responsible for any terrorists attacks and didn't the president, oh my God, lie about the presence of nuclear weapons there. :roll:

Erniedytn · Oct 26, 2007

pandabear said:
oil routes?? oil im sorry to say is shipped by sea .

I'm talking about the oil pipelines that carry it to the sea.

Erniedytn · Oct 26, 2007

pandabear said:
lastly E if we wanted cheap oil it would have been much cheaper to purchase it than spend hand over fist in the war.

That's just the thing dude...we're not spending hand over fist...we're (they're) MAKING hand over fist. With all the control over the oil, and Haliburton raking in all the profit from war machine production, the powers that be can't lose! Don't forget about all the non-government related (supposedly) orginazations that have taken up residence over there as well.....once again, making money.

Erniedytn · Oct 26, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
Your missing the point Pandabear. Go back and read my original post(4th page 4th one down) Terrorism is a just a tool they use to control you........
What Erniedtyn was refering to was the believe that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 not terrorists.....
Even if we pretend for a minute that a couple towelheads with box cutters brought down the twin towers Being in Iraq and Afghanistan is just creating more terrorists. I thought this was supposed to be a "war on terror", last I checked Iraq wasn't responsible for any terrorists attacks and didn't the president, oh my God, lie about the presence of nuclear weapons there.

EXACTLY!!!! :blsmoke:

dankie · Oct 26, 2007

pandabear said:
oil routes?? oil im sorry to say is shipped by sea .

I believe he was speaking of the 1140 mile oil pipeline proposed by Unocal prior to the war. here is part of the congressional record. Speaking is:

JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

...The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company....

...Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion....

Oil is not just shipped. This came from the congrsessional record of 1998

HotNSexyMILF · Oct 29, 2007

medicineman said:
What is your point? Doesn't he have a right to his opinion. Just because his "Opinion" doesn't correlate with yours, doesn't necessarily make his wrong. Although it would take a library full of books on US foreign policy to really make his case, I believe the premis is correct. It was US foriegn policy that caused the 911 attacks. The presence of US military on Islamic soil and the ever present plundering of the natural resourses pretty much sums it up. I'm not a rocket scientist, but if it were them putting military bases on our soil and ripping off our resourses, I'm pretty sure most true Americans would be pissed.

Well said, this pretty much sums up my views. If another country put military bases on U.S. soil and Mexico's soil and used our resources for their own agenda- WE WOULD BE PISSED! And you're damn right- we would have a group of crazy fuckers planning a way to fuck up something majorly.

Look back in history- forcing views, ideals, laws, governments, or the like on other nations and people result in DISASTER. Remember, forcing these things on your own people unwillingly produces the same results....history is the most important subject taught- how can we move on productively and peacefully without making the same mistakes of past generations when we haven't studied the past?

7xstall · Oct 30, 2007

HotNSexyMILF said:
Well said, this pretty much sums up my views. If another country put military bases on U.S. soil and Mexico's soil and used our resources for their own agenda- WE WOULD BE PISSED! And you're damn right- we would have a group of crazy fuckers planning a way to fuck up something majorly.

Look back in history- forcing views, ideals, laws, governments, or the like on other nations and people result in DISASTER. Remember, forcing these things on your own people unwillingly produces the same results....history is the most important subject taught- how can we move on productively and peacefully without making the same mistakes of past generations when we haven't studied the past?

ummm.. that's perfect.

.

silk · Oct 30, 2007

7xstall said:
ummm.. that's perfect.
.

Funny concept. As I see it, weapons are important but not factories?

7xstall · Oct 31, 2007

silk said:
Funny concept. As I see it, weapons are important but not factories?

sure, they're both important. it comes down to the priorities. is it better to manage the different regions of the world and build these huge schemes to manipulate foreign countries and assume that by doing this America will benefit directly or indirectly? there is a tax for this kind of thing, it's a liberty tax. by getting tangled up in all these layers of political loyalty and complicated world-stage dramatics we sacrifice a great deal of our sovereignty. with our sovereignty goes liberty. look at our open borders letting millions of welfare entitled criminals in every year. look at how the UN is pressuring the federal government to "tighten up" on our gun laws in the USA. look at the world dictating our laws on pollution and emission standards. look at the world always assuming that our military is on call to be thrown into whatever meat grinder the EU doesn't have the stomach for.

we can manage our relationships in a much more efficient way. we can trade fairly with those countries and share our knowledge with them. life isn't a poker game, life isn't about one upping the other guy, at least it doesn't have to be. what if we one-upped ourselves, like we used to? more innovation and invention has come from America in our short existence than all the other nations combined. we don't need a "presence" over there, those countries aren't children that we need to tend to. those civilizations are ancient and yes, they are peculiar to us but that's how they go. enough with the world police game.

.

medicineman · Oct 31, 2007

7xstall said:
sure, they're both important. it comes down to the priorities. is it better to manage the different regions of the world and build these huge schemes to manipulate foreign countries and assume that by doing this America will benefit directly or indirectly? there is a tax for this kind of thing, it's a liberty tax. by getting tangled up in all these layers of political loyalty and complicated world-stage dramatics we sacrifice a great deal of our sovereignty. with our sovereignty goes liberty. look at our open borders letting millions of welfare entitled criminals in every year. look at how the UN is pressuring the federal government to "tighten up" on our gun laws in the USA. look at the world dictating our laws on pollution and emission standards. look at the world always assuming that our military is on call to be thrown into whatever meat grinder the EU doesn't have the stomach for.

we can manage our relationships in a much more efficient way. we can trade fairly with those countries and share our knowledge with them. life isn't a poker game, life isn't about one upping the other guy, at least it doesn't have to be. what if we one-upped ourselves, like we used to? more innovation and invention has come from America in our short existence than all the other nations combined. we don't need a "presence" over there, those countries aren't children that we need to tend to. those civilizations are ancient and yes, they are peculiar to us but that's how they go. enough with the world police game.

.

I agree. But you are preaching to the choir. With the exception of a couple of people on this forum, I think we all agree that the US is over-extended in all respects and needs to pull back and take care of it's own. There are a couple that are paranoid and believe we need to kill all the "islamofascists" whatever that is. But generally speaking you have sumed up the general consensus.

Erniedytn · Oct 31, 2007

7xstall said:
sure, they're both important. it comes down to the priorities. is it better to manage the different regions of the world and build these huge schemes to manipulate foreign countries and assume that by doing this America will benefit directly or indirectly? there is a tax for this kind of thing, it's a liberty tax. by getting tangled up in all these layers of political loyalty and complicated world-stage dramatics we sacrifice a great deal of our sovereignty. with our sovereignty goes liberty. look at our open borders letting millions of welfare entitled criminals in every year. look at how the UN is pressuring the federal government to "tighten up" on our gun laws in the USA. look at the world dictating our laws on pollution and emission standards. look at the world always assuming that our military is on call to be thrown into whatever meat grinder the EU doesn't have the stomach for.

we can manage our relationships in a much more efficient way. we can trade fairly with those countries and share our knowledge with them. life isn't a poker game, life isn't about one upping the other guy, at least it doesn't have to be. what if we one-upped ourselves, like we used to? more innovation and invention has come from America in our short existence than all the other nations combined. we don't need a "presence" over there, those countries aren't children that we need to tend to. those civilizations are ancient and yes, they are peculiar to us but that's how they go. enough with the world police game.

.

NoCash · Oct 31, 2007

HotNSexyMILF said:
Ron Paul will bring us back to the country we were.
With Ron Paul as president
I would be much more proud to raise my daughter in this country and raise her in a truly free society.

"With ___ as president, everything will be okay."

This is the overall message of every presidential campaign, ever. And no president has ever achieved it. Perhaps you mean freedom to toke, and if that's it, then yeah, maybe Ron Paul is the way to go. But I think you meant more than that, and the reality of it is this - the government is never going to hand over freedom, because that is handing over power. People have to learn to get things done for themselves, without the government. Going out and choosing who will make the laws you live by will not make you free. It's like a choice between Pepsi and Coke. In the end, it's all cola.

Besides, one person's liberation is often another's enslavement. Creating a "truly free society" would require a lot of work, and it would have to differ among different areas so as to accommodate the wishes of different people. The US is waaaay too big to ever please everyone, or even almost everyone.

closet.cult · Oct 31, 2007

NoCash said:
"With ___ as president, everything will be okay."

This is the overall message of every presidential campaign, ever. And no president has ever achieved it. Perhaps you mean freedom to toke, and if that's it, then yeah, maybe Ron Paul is the way to go. But I think you meant more than that, and the reality of it is this - the government is never going to hand over freedom, because that is handing over power. People have to learn to get things done for themselves, without the government. Going out and choosing who will make the laws you live by will not make you free. It's like a choice between Pepsi and Coke. In the end, it's all cola.

Besides, one person's liberation is often another's enslavement. Creating a "truly free society" would require a lot of work, and it would have to differ among different areas so as to accommodate the wishes of different people. The US is waaaay too big to ever please everyone, or even almost everyone.

I agree. I support Ron Paul's message, but the President alone doesn't make the kind of changes he's suggesting. He would have to make a VERY good case to congress and America for each one of the different programs and bureaus he wishes to eliminate.

He would likely get voted down on most of them because of strong lobbying by big business involved in these programs, just like they do today.

IF he became president, he would have an uphill battle for each good point he makes to the public because of one big truth on Capitol Hill: the law makers write laws that are in their favor. Why would it be otherwise?

medicineman · Oct 31, 2007

closet.cult said:
I agree. I support Ron Paul's message, but the President alone doesn't make the kind of changes he's suggesting. He would have to make a VERY good case to congress and America for each one of the different programs and bureaus he wishes to eliminate.

He would likely get voted down on most of them because of strong lobbying by big business involved in these programs, just like they do today.

IF he became president, he would have an uphill battle for each good point he makes to the public because of one big truth on Capitol Hill: the law makers write laws that are in their favor. Why would it be otherwise?

Now thats called the coalition of the willing~LOL~.

CannaBoss · Oct 31, 2007

pandabear said:
i dont know guys ron paul said he wanted to eliminate the fbi & cia and also said we should leave the middle east just like osama said when he bitch slapped us and blowed up our wives and children on 9/11. Mr. Paul wants to turn tail and run!

I know it sounds nice to be able to pull away from the world, but then whos gonna keep all the despots, tyrants, rapists of nations, and starvers of children at bay. oh ya and dont forget about the ones who wanna nuke the whole western world.

the minet we pull away from world and ignore it is the minuet a bunch of
tyranous goverments seize smaller counties monopolizing the oil, freedom, food and everything else and use it to oppress and consolidate power.

we could retreat if we werent the strongest nation and not the only one standing and walking the walk for long term peace, freedom for all, and no ethnic mass killings and mass starvations.

the polititions are the cause of the problem cuz they pit us against each other, thats how they stay in power. thats why hilary and dems always try to increase the size of the government so there are more people that rely on the government, hence they get elected more often, eventually after years and years, they will even control your bread and you will have to wiat in line all day for your loaf, just like they did in russia many years ago.

we gonna have to fix the world or atleast make it habitable for everyone or the power hungry will destroy it just like the power hungry here are destroying america.

the reason we have to do this now is because the day our fathers have been dreding is here

atom bombs for everyone in the world. we all new this day would come

this is the reason we cannot retire. other than that we could have left all those fucks to kill and rape without worrying about nukes in your cities that have no return address. but kill all our loved

JFK wanted to get rid of the CIA and the FED too! remember what happend to him...
This is not impossible, otherwise he wouldn't be saying that he could do it..the man knows far better how this stuff works than all of us on this forum do...give him a chance and he'll get it done. I would die to defend OUR country, just like my Grandpa did in Pearl Harbour, but not for this middle east agenda.
If Ron Paul wins...and he just might, I would be as proud of this country as you were MILF when you were just a lass...

silk · Oct 31, 2007

Erniedytn said:
Actually my man...I do not get my info from the mainstream media...they are nothing but pawns to the government. I am well aware of the Oklahoma City bombing....it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, or foreign affairs. I believe my opinion is very informed and I have done my homework on this subject, so don't preach to me. This fucking government is run by criminals...period. They wanted to invade Afghanistan for the oil routes, and Iraq for the oil supply.... 9/11 was their excuse...and FYI I smoke my fare share of doobies.

Did you forget what HotNSexyMILF posted? The Oklahoma City bombing has everything to do with American Pride. Did you smoke one too many doobies and get on a banana boat by accident? Domestic affairs are always related to foreign affairs at minimal on the basis of allocating time and money (tax revenue). Another simple example is: doesn't having a president like George W. Bush lower your pride as an American? <- That's rhetorical, please just think about it...

Okay, now please show me the homework that indicates that the U.S. is in Iraq for the oil supply. I'd love to copy your notes for my own edification. :blsmoke:

American Pride...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Master of Mayhem

Master of Mayhem

Master of Mayhem

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Master of Mayhem

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member