Tab Content
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    09-15-2017, 04:36 AM
    This crap again. :rolleyes: To the OP, you really should research your quote about America not being a Christian nation. It was an attempt to pacify the Muslim Barbary Pirates. As far as our Founders go, what they believed and what our country was founded on, a very nice and learned man, now deceased, spent a great deal of time posting said information in the forum's blog. I recommend highly you review it.
    14 replies | 314 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    08-29-2017, 04:23 AM
    Yes, I voted for him and would do it again. Next?
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    08-28-2017, 03:51 AM
    Sarah Palin was not the "et al" who took over part of the tea party. She was however the et al who endorsed Rand Paul for President.
    45 replies | 1084 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    08-28-2017, 03:49 AM
    Oh bullshit, Drake. Rand ended himself. If he had wanted to ruin his campaign, he couldn't have done it better.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    08-28-2017, 03:42 AM
    The mere fact that you are still on this website preaching globalism in the name of Ron Paul is not only rubbing people's noses in it, but is an affront to everything Ron Paul ever stood for. /end rant
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 08:47 PM
    Oh you don't say? And here I was thinking you were absolutely perfect. :rolleyes: Uh-huh. Common theme in most modern science fiction. Check out Stargate SG1 sometime. Here is the key. The Greeks didn't portray their gods as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent the way Semetic cultures did and Judeo/Christian culture ultimately does. Zeus wasn't pre-existing like Yaweh and he (Zeus) ultimately killed his own father. So aliens of godlike power are not incompatible with the Greek pantheon. Now go back to the description of the interplay between Tyson and Hawking. Both were describing beings of godlike power as compared to humans. Tyson said these aliens would see us as we see "worms" and the reason he wasn't afraid of them the way that Hawking was is that, just like humans don't feel the need to be bothered with stepping on all the worms they see, he felt it was unlikely these powerful aliens would be interested in wiping out humanity. But maybe they might find us amusing the way we find zoo animals. Now, back to your original false assertion that there is no evidence for God. That's simply probably false. You not accepting the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. There is even evidence that the universe could have been created. What evidence you say? Well modern scientists have theorized how even they could create a universe. So if humans could create a universe, our own universe could have been created. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/06/19/build-a-universe-in-the-lab/#.WaIx-T6GOUk
    144 replies | 2847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 08:34 PM
    Lots of Christians are selective old covenant Christians.
    144 replies | 2847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 08:23 PM
    I'm not your friend and I'm not misunderstanding states rights. I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Jack Hunter that the nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper execution of states rights.
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 08:21 PM
    Yes. And I gave you a direct refutation. The argument is that South Carolina feels Northern nullification is a violation of the constitutional pact. But, as "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter pointed out, nullification of fugitive slave laws was an exercise in states rights. That's the "direct refutation" of your argument. Here ya go. You can't have it both ways and you are being intellectually dishonest. I agreed with Jack Hunter's point that Rachel Maddow was wrong about nullification and that nullification of fugitive slave laws was a proper exercise of states rights. But here you destroy your own argument. south under the Constitution, had equal rights to own their property, the north violated that with the fugitive slave laws
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 08:15 PM
    Already covered that in PM.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 07:20 PM
    Then you are full of shyt. I've read it. I've talked about it in this thread. You are full of shyt. South Carolina was complaining about nullification of fugitive slave laws, when South Carolina had earlier used nullification against tariffs. So they were being hypocrites of the first order. You know where I first heard about nullification of fugitive slave laws? By none other than "The Southern Avenger" and he was using it in defense of states rights, and here you are defending South Carolina attacking fugitive slave laws as being against states rights. Your side can't have it both ways. Either nullification is a part of states rights....or it isn't.
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 07:14 PM
    I have yet to see you take on the racists here. I have also yet to see you explain how shrinking the department of education = expanding the federal government.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 07:14 PM
    Actually the sun doesn't "come up" at all. It's the earth that moves around the sun. Or are you a flat earther now? But back to the truth, something you can't handle. It was Trump and his supporters that ended Rand Paul's campaign and by extension thwarted Ron Paul. I have yet to see you call them out for it.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 07:09 PM
    And again "That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war." Except states don't have the right to demand other states enforce federal law. Also the very term "states rights" is....well....STATIST! Can states rights protect from an overactive federal government? Sure. But at the end of the day, the NAP is really about individual rights. The state, whether it is the state of Tennessee or the state of Russia, is an artificial construct. I no more want the state of Tennessee passing a law which says I can't have a Ron Paul bumper sticker than I want the United States passing such a law. And I would appeal both to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution to oppose such a law. Some here would argue "Oh but you're violating states rights!" To that I would say "And?" It's funny that with a Trump presidency and threatened funding of "sanctuary cities", the left has rediscovered "states rights." One more thing. Those who argue about Lincoln abolishing states rights are hypocrites for ignoring Andrew Jackson. He's the president who first threatened to hang secessionists. But southerners love Andrew Jackson. Southerners pitched a fit about Obama's move to take him off the $20. Explain that one to me.
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 07:02 PM
    :rolleyes: You do understand that you just reposted the OP right? Recap of the arguments. Yes Lincoln understood that the constitution as it was written protected slavery and he wasn't against a new amendment to further codify what was already there. At the same time Lincoln made it clear in the same inaugural address that he didn't think the constitution protected the expansion of slavery or said who in fact had to enforce fugitive slave laws. The South saw both restrictions on fugitive slave laws and the expansion of slavery as, in the words of Mississippi, and attempt to eventually extinguish slavery. That's not what I said. That's not what some liberal historian said. That's what states like Mississippi said. To draw an analogy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both give lip service to the second amendment. I'm sure they would be fine with an amendment that said "You can never change the second amendment." And yet they are undermining the second amendment on the sly. Now here is where @fishamor goes off the rails. His argument is "South Carolina didn't care about slavery, just about the constitution." That's like saying "People who support the right to own guns don't actually support the right to own guns. They just support the constitution." Well...the reason to support the second amendment isn't just because it's in the constitution. It's also because it's actually a good thing. Sometimes the constitution has gone off track in a way that actually restricts liberty, such as prohibition. If South Carolina and other slave states had said "You know what? We need to amend the constitution so we can come up with a peaceable way to end slavery." Then the argument that Paul Craig Roberts is trying to make would be valid. But I see no historical evidence of that. Lincoln attempted to do compensated emancipation with the border states but that failed to pass in congress. He was able to do compensated emancipation in Washington D.C. I have yet to see any evidence of any moves by any southern states to actually end slavery. Quite the contrary, they wanted slavery protected even to the point of sending escaped slaves back south (and in some cases kidnapping free blacks and making them slaves). Really, it's the historical dishonesty that bugs me the most. I don't hate Robert E. Lee. I'm "meh" about the confederate flag. I'm "meh" about the nazi flag. Adolf Hitler never did anything to me or mine. In fact, according to Jesse Owens, Hitler shook his hand. It was U.S. propaganda that made the false claim that Hitler turned his back on Jesse Owens. So I don't have to go along with what is mental gymnastics to pretend the South didn't stand for what it actually stood for to not be a fan of antifa's antics. Seriously this neo-confederate revisionism is simply another form of political correctness. I had an open mind about why the South seceded. I had a southern apologist for a history teacher in high school who actually knew less facts about U.S. history than I did. I did my own research, read all of the pro slavery references and straight up racism in the southern declarations of secession and the confederate constitution, read Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses, and came to the logical conclusion that slavery was a but for and proximate cause of the U.S. Civil War. Others come to a different conclusion through mental gymnastics? Fine. They have that right. But all of the acrimony that flows from the "How dare you say the South wanted to protect slavery....even though they said clearly said they wanted to protect slavery" crowd is sad.
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:39 PM
    Okay. So your point is that while the initial group of states who bailed were motivated by slavery that wasn't everybody's motivation? Fine. That doesn't change the fact that slavery was a "but for" cause as well as a proximate cause for secession and ultimately the civil war.
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:34 PM
    :rolleyes: Uhhh...no. You're being the Bill Clinton liar here. Once again, the Northern States not enforcing fugitive slaves laws was NOT in violation of the U.S. Constitution! The U.S. Constitution did not specify who had to enforce fugitive slave laws. Further more, the issue that united the south, was, come on you can be honest about it and say it, slavery. South Carolina tried to get other states to secede over tariffs when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and they failed miserably. South Carolina only succeeded in getting other states to join their Exodus once the framed the issue around slavery! Mississippi was so adamant about the slavery part that they didn't just complain about the fugitive slave law issue, but also the expansion of slavery and even criticism of slavery by abolitionists. You have to be totally devoid of logic, reason and/or honesty to just sweep that under the rug. By the way, it's clear from your ranting that you don't understand the meaning of the term "proximate cause."
    111 replies | 1864 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:27 PM
    History erased. :rolleyes:
    33 replies | 589 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:22 PM
    Antifa are like the communists that battled the fascists in Italy and the nazis in Germany in the 1930s which helped fascist Mussolini and nazi Hitler rise to power. History repeating itself? Dear God I hope not.
    33 replies | 589 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:21 PM
    While I'm not in favor of removing statues for the same reason liberal democrat Andrew Young is not in favor of removing statues (it's divisive, a waste of money, and doesn't actually do anything to fix anybody's problems), I'm curious as to why you and others seem to think that removing statues is "erasing history?" Was the history of the Soviet Union erased when Lenin and Stalin's statues came down? Did Iraqi history disappear when Saddam Hussein's statue came down? Where I live there are several statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Not only was that civil war general one of the early leaders of the KKK, but during the war he committed war crimes by allowing his troops to murder black union soldiers and escaped slaves at Ft. Pillow. Statues are for heroes, not history. We don't have up a statue of Admiral Yamato at Pearl Harbor even though he was very much a part of that history. That said, it's sad that Robert E. Lee is in the middle of all of this because, unlike Forrest, Lee was neither a war criminal nor a racist. After the civil war Lee helped integrate a church. Of course that "history" neither gets talked about by the alt-right nor the radical left as the idea of Robert E. Lee being for racial integration is anathema to both sides.
    33 replies | 589 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 06:02 PM
    Why do you support paid racists? And when are you going to answer my question? You are against shrinking the Department of Education? More right wing identity politics from you. Zippy and TheCount aren't thwarting Ron Paul. But Trump supporters are. Without Trump and his supporters attacking Rand Paul during the primary, Rand Paul might be president. And I have yet to see you call out the racist attacks against Rand Paul for being against the drug war by your fellow trumpsters. Why is that?
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 05:21 PM
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL This belongs here.
    5 replies | 155 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 05:17 PM
    More right wing identity politics. You represent everything Ron Paul is against. When in Congress he didn't reflexively oppose people like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney just because they were progressive. When they were right he agreed with them. When the were wrong, he opposed the specific policy of where they were wrong and did so intelligently (unlike you) but he didn't carry that on into any other interactions with them. In fact that's why in 2008 Ron Paul invited Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr to his joint "3rd party presidential" press conference where he gave a joint endorsement based on principles instead of party. Bob Barr decided to be an ass because he's all about identity politics, kind of like you, and didn't show and demanded Ron Paul endorse a single candidate. So Ron Paul promptly endorsed Chuck Baldwin to spite Barr. Barr, for all of his talk about "liberty" later gave gun grabber Eric Holder for attorney general, showing how hypocritical he was being. Likewise I have yet to see you call out the progressiveness of Steve Bannon and some of the national socialists Trump supporters on this forum. Edit: And I see you are cowardly running from the truth. Answer this. You are against shrinking the Department of Education? You aren't really thinking this through. It's because of your right wing identity politics. TheCount is a "progressive" so, without thinking, you wrongly assume every proposal he puts forward is about growing government when the truth is that in the case you are quoting out of context, the opposite is true. Right now the Department of Education does much more than "facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches." Now, why don't you explain to me exactly how Steve Bannon's propose to increase taxes on the rich to freaking 44% and put together a whopping 1 trillion dollar stimulus package where the federal government literally "throws it against the wall and sees what sticks" is limited government.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 05:04 PM
    Are you a supporting member? Because with your right wing identity politics, I don't see you actually supporting the mission of this site.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 05:03 PM
    Exactly! You are so hung up on right wing identity politics that it has limited your ability to dispassionately work through facts. The context of what TheCount wrote, where you are quoting him out of context, is a proposal to drastically reduce the current size and scope of the Department of Education to a "bully pulpit" role.
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    08-26-2017, 05:00 PM
    So let me get this straight. You are against shrinking the Department of Education? :confused: You aren't really thinking this through. It's because of your right wing identity politics. TheCount is a "progressive" so, without thinking, you wrongly assume every proposal he puts forward is about growing government when the truth is that in the case you are quoting out of context, the opposite is true. Right now the Department of Education does much more than "facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches." Now, why don't you explain to me exactly how Steve Bannon's propose to increase taxes on the rich to freaking 44% and put together a whopping 1 trillion dollar stimulus package where the federal government literally "throws it against the wall and sees what sticks" is limited government. :confused:
    95 replies | 2459 view(s)
More Activity
About Crowish

Basic Information

Political Campaign Skills
Copywriters:
Collateral Writer, Editor, Proofreading, Researcher, Reporter
Graphics:
Web Designer / Developer
Computer and Technical:
WebMaster

Signature


--
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. -- Eric Hoffer

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
370
Posts Per Day
0.10
General Information
Last Activity
05-01-2010 12:12 PM
Join Date
01-08-2008
Referrals
0

7 Friends

  1. asimplegirl asimplegirl is offline

    Member

    asimplegirl
  2. Deborah K Deborah K is offline

    Member

    Deborah K
  3. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  4. LibertyEagle LibertyEagle is offline

    Paleoconservative

    LibertyEagle
  5. MelissaWV MelissaWV is offline

    Member

    MelissaWV
  6. MsDoodahs MsDoodahs is offline

    Senior

    MsDoodahs
  7. Son of Detroit Son of Detroit is offline

    Member

    Son of Detroit
Showing Friends 1 to 7 of 7
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...