Tab Content
  • parocks's Avatar
    Today, 12:09 AM
    Hillary is disgusting. What did the Democrats say "hey remember that guy who was impeached for lying about blow jobs? Get his wife?" The Clintons set new standards for personal awfulness. We don't want more of that. How do you know how Trump is going to govern? You're arguing they're identical. They're not. We can always fall back on the whole "well what we believe is best is so far from what we usually get and what most people seem to want that all the actual nominees always appear close to each other." That's true, but that doesn't mean that Trump and Hillary are identical. There are clear differences. Build the wall. Clinton doesn't agree on that one.
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:02 PM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild On 22 October 1806 in London, he married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levy Barent Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx. In the 19th century a story arose that accuses him of having used his early knowledge of victory at the Battle of Waterloo to speculate on the stock exchange and make a vast fortune. Frederic Morton relates the story thus:
    25 replies | 474 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:43 PM
    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964280,00.html Time Magazine 05/04/87 ("In 1969 Soros started the fund that became Quantum with only $250,000. Members of the Rothschild family and other rich Europeans soon kicked in an additional $6 million. Since then the fund has grown mostly through reinvested profits.")
    25 replies | 474 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:39 PM
    The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
    25 replies | 474 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:03 PM
    13. In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some "Panama" or other—then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of president. Who actually wrote that - above - is unknown. But it was written over 100 years ago.
    25 replies | 474 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    46 replies | 559 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 04:02 PM
    I don't really care. Hillary is a disgusting pig who should have gone away 16 years ago. You should know better than to defend Hillary.
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 04:00 PM
    *** it hasn't. in the long run, in a free market, it might. But we don't live in a free market. I assume everybody here took econ 101 at some point, and the first thing they do is tell you what the assumptions are. And they're all wrong. Basically, wheat farmers have a free market. Even that's not really true. When you have oliopolies, and almost everything is - the "everything will work out fine" theory of the free market - Adam Smith 1776 - is out the door.
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 03:48 PM
    Wait a second, this isn't an economics argument. This is about whether not wanting their wages driven to the floor makes people racist. It doesn't. I don't want to have the "protectionist vs free market" debate. I will say that I've given money to Pat Buchanan in the 1990s and I gave money to Ron Paul both times, and given money to Rand Paul this year and when he ran for Senate. And the reason I liked both of them, even though they have different ideas about "protectionism vs free market" is that it they were very convincing to me that they understood that we were definitely on the WRONG TRACK. The World is Controlled by Evil Crooks. Is it a Protectionist solution or a Free Market solution to kill them all and take all their money? I'm guessing neither.
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 03:09 PM
    I didn't think it was dark either. If I had to criticize it, perhaps it was over simplistic. But over simplistic is the direction I'm going these days with my own argumentation, and there was a bit much of the Mussolini strongman style, but the center of it was "it'll be super easy for me to kick ass, FAST, on these problems", which is where hope for the future might come from, and there sure was a lot of A#1 America talk. I do like the super straight talk, too, but if he could just throw in, like a little riff or something that gives people of above average intelligence some clue that he actually knows what's going on as opposed to an hour long string of focus group tested and polled talking points. Can't fault him for staying on message, and putting forth a clear message that almost everyone can understand, but you know, a little burst here or there that reveals thought. I liked the part about the Johnson Amendment, which I had no idea about, but hearing that made me think that it's possible that he could have some type of fresh take, fresh solutions. Less strongman, less Yay Israel, more spying, a little more something new, something smart. Apparently, most people liked the speech a lot. Very favorable was over 50% and over 20% for somewhat favorable. Most people, including myself, haven't been paying close attention to everything Trump has said, and it's really been filtered through the media. If he's talking direct to the people, they're responding favorably.
    46 replies | 559 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 02:44 PM
    Advancing the cause of Libertarianism? How's that going? Seems like it's been a complete and total failure to this point. But hey, if Hillary wins, and Gary Johnson gets 1-2% of the vote, the GOP can point to the Libertarian Candidate and say "oh, look, it's the Libertarians fault that we have Hillary" Since that same thing has been happening every 4 years (when the Ds win) and since we're getting farther and farther away from what we want in terms of limited constitutional government, you might want to rethink your strategy, because showing everyone that you're a tiny minority that is of little use does not make things better.
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 02:17 PM
    I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but this MSM is owned by only a few folks. I agree with. Fewer in number than ever before, and those folks suck more than ever before. It would piss those people off if Trump was elected, so, elect him.
    46 replies | 559 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 02:09 PM
    I guess I don't know what "racist comments" are. But notice that the person making the "racist comments" is not being called a racist, because the author is a kiss-ass pussy. If you think that building a wall is intrinsically racist, then the person suggesting building the wall is instrinsically racist. It's sickening BS to hear the speaker making "racist" comments get let off the hook when the people who aren't saying anything, who aren't crafting the message, merely showing support for the general idea, and not necessarily the language, get called racists. I guess the author might want a job. Speak truth to power, hell no, criticize the powerless. Hey, we're all in agreement that our Federal Government sucks and has always sucked in our lifetimes. I can't tell you when there started to be "illegal" immigration, but I know that Eisenhower, who is not known as a notorious racist, did implement "Operation Wetback" designed to remove people who were here illegally. Again, no Federal Government at all would be best - but since we can't have that, do you really want to bash people for wanting existing laws to be enforced? The illegal immigrants do cause a drop in wages. And I know libertarians care more about having a lot of people available willing to work for low wages than almost anything else, but I really don't. We don't like in a free market. Prices aren't the cost of production. Prices are whatever they want them to be (basically, at least the prices are untethered to production cost) because oligopoly. You're dumping on poor people, poor Americans, decent people who have been watching illegal immigrants take their jobs or live off their tax money, who simply want these laws that have been there since before they were born to be enforced. And you attack them. They just want the government to do the job they were supposed to be doing all along. And Trump was instantaneously popular with those lower middle class or poor whites with jobs who simply do not want a bunch of people coming in - illegally - and taking their jobs.
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 01:42 PM
    Garbage article. "Now if you asked Trump if fear mongering or peddling hate was his intent–I don’t think he’s a bigot but isn’t self-aware enough to understand the dark emotions he’s recklessly unleashing—he would likely scoff and accuse you of being politically correct. To make such an accusation is to encourage Trump and his followers who actually are racists even more." Lower middle class whites don't like losing their jobs to illegal immigrants. That doesn't make them racists. If Trump wants to use racial arguments instead of economic arguments, that's on Trump. Restricting the supply of cheap labor makes the price of labor go up. More money in the hands of lower middle class whites. More money for them, not racism. Notice these days how all of these authors love to kiss the ass of Trump while attacking people who will vote for him. Hillary is a disgusting pig. People who feel that Hillary is a disgusting pig are a big part of Trump's winning coalition, and racism has nothing to do with the votes coming from that anti-Hillary block. This author is a piece of trash.
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 01:01 PM
    If she floats she's a witch, burn her.
    50 replies | 737 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 12:55 PM
    Trump might not be good. Hillary definitely will be awful. All that stuff about Trump not being a Conservative sounds right to me. Same thing can be said for Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush. Trump said a few things that some people here liked. I think that makes him the best GOP Nominee in a generation, right? He used the word "Peace" and not in some sneering neocon way, but as something that he was in favor of. That's good, right? Hillary is sickening, and that's good enough for me. 4 years ago, Obama wasn't quite as sickening, Romney had less to distinguish himself from Obama, and Romney and the GOP screwed over our candidate and our delegates. At least Trump is pretending to not be not in favor of constant war in the Middle East. When was the last time a GOP Nominee said that?
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 12:38 PM
    Vote Trump because Hillary is a disgusting pig. That's pretty simple. Who cares about Gary Johnson? More people here wrote in Ron Paul in 2012 than voted for Gary Johnson, who was doing the same thing last time. And that was a situtation where the GOP and Romney screwed over Ron Paul and the delegates. This time around, Trump didn't screw Rand. We have no reason to be pissed at Trump.
    68 replies | 600 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 12:16 PM
    It's more than that. For one thing, the speech wasn't dark. They're getting instructions from somewhere. The speech spent a lot of time on how problems can be fixed fast.
    46 replies | 559 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 12:05 PM
    How exactly did it magically happen that everybody used the word dark at the same time? They're getting instructions from somewhere.
    46 replies | 559 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 11:58 AM
    how did anyone but Bush get us Obama? Bush won in 2000, 2004. Obama won in 2008, 2012. Both Trump and Hillary are presumed to suck. There will be a President. Hillary is proven to suck. It's not like there are, or have ever been good choices in November. The US is the 2nd worst country in the world next to Israel, and that's likely to continue no matter who is elected. Everybody in charge of everything big in the US is awful, and getting worse. But Hillary is a disgusting pig and I don't want her to be President, so I'll vote for Trump. "But what if things go bad?" Things are always the worst ever. Yeah, things will probably be bad. Trump will probably be the worst President ever, Hillary definitely would be.
    789 replies | 11288 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 07:09 AM
    I'd say that he's just making it all up as he goes along. I don't think we really have any real idea of what we'd get with Trump. However, Hillary is proven to suck and they've all sucked. I 100% get the idea of not voting for someone who sucks. My position on this one has shifted, my position from about 6 months ago was based on uncertainty as to who the candidates would be. Today, it's Hillary = proven to suck and Trump = merely likely to suck. With Trump, you really can't be comfortable at all that he's going to do anything that he's saying, that he actually believes anything he's saying. So, that could be good or bad, maybe he doesn't believe at all in "Yay, Israel! More Spying!" His consultants have probably extensively focus group tested most of the major issues, and he's working basically from a Buchanan / Populist / protectionist / isolationist template. Maybe 20 years ago he looked at Buchanan and said "I would win with this script" and that's what we're seeing right now. He's a real estate developer though, so, most of what he knows has something to do with real estate development. So, there would likely be big gaps in knowledge there. That doesn't particularly bother me. He didn't go out of his way to single out Ron or Rand and screw them, so, at least in that regard, he's ok.
    789 replies | 11288 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 06:38 AM
    I can't and won't argue that Trump won't suck. They all suck and they've all gotten worse. Hillary is proven to suck, Trump is presumed to suck. I just want Hillary not on the TV any more. 20 years ago, I had more than enough of Clinton. But she's still here. Not gone. So, you know, Trump it is, for me at least.
    789 replies | 11288 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 07:31 PM
    Maybe. I don't think that Hillary can do much of anything to change perceptions of her. i'd think that Trump's numbers could move all over the place. Trump's favorability has changed since March-April. The media was filling the airwaves with so much information that people really didn't want to really take the time to process. My position on Trump has changed since March-April, and for the better. Oh, so it definitely will be Hillary? I guess I kinda like Trump maybe a little bit maybe. Enough to not vote for Hillary. But when it was Hillary v Bernie and Trump v whoever else, I was just generally dissatisfied across the board. Still am, but the context is different. The threat of Hillary is real.
    789 replies | 11288 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 07:16 PM
    8 years, bing, time for change. Carter had 4, Reagan/Bush 12, but after that Clinton 8, Bush 8, Obama 8. Before Carter, Eisenhower 8, Kennedy/LBJ 8, Nixon/Ford 8. So, in the last 64 years, there's only been one election that didn't meet that formula. If it was Carter instead of Reagan in 1980, it would've been 8 sets of 8 going back and forth.
    85 replies | 823 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 03:57 PM
    Hillary is disgusting though. That really should get Trump the win. Trump will probably suck. I'm now planning on voting for Trump. Hillary makes me ill. 24 years of her. Just make it stop.
    789 replies | 11288 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 03:23 PM
    Hillary has been really pissing off a lot of people for decades. She's 100% proven to be completely awful. Trump did not go out of his way to screw Ron or Rand Paul. If our country wasn't a fked up mess we'd hear as much about Hillary Clinton as Rosalynn Carter. But, no, Hillary, who is awful on so many levels is still around. Voting for Trump. Hillary is disgusting, far more nausea inspiring than Obama. If Michelle Obama runs for President in 2032, it's be like now. I might be a bit older than many of you. No fking way to Hillary Clinton. Without the whole "Hillary makes me sick" argument, the argument I was making last year was No Bush, no Clinton. They all sucked. Proven to suck. Trump isn't proven to suck. He probably will, but we don't know that for a fact.
    113 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-16-2016, 06:56 PM
    If all the networks (partial Fox exception, partial) are saying the same thing, then advertising will get sold. There's nowhere else to go. They're an oligopoly. Not a free market. You're pretending that they're fierce competitors. They aren't. They're working together, that's the nature of the oligopoly. Look at and understand the differences between oligopoly and free market - perfect competition. You can bold sell advertising all you want. They all have the same product - they all are pushing the same agenda - and advertisers and viewers don't have other choices. Guy in his basement cannot set up his own TV network.
    152 replies | 2436 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-16-2016, 06:34 PM
    I thought it started 25 years ago with Gulf War I and it hasn't stopped, and they're not interested in stopping it ever.
    11 replies | 375 view(s)
  • parocks's Avatar
    07-15-2016, 09:28 PM
    Official Campaign Staffer in Maine in 2012, getting us the win. He's doing well. His assistant director (maybe?), also an Official Campaign Staffer, David Boyer, is also doing well, he's leading the Yes on 1 - the legalize Marijuana referendum efforts in Maine. Hooray for Maine's Official Campaign Staffers for Ron Paul in 2012.
    12 replies | 549 view(s)
More Activity
About RPM

Basic Information

About RPM
Interests:
Liberty

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
25
Posts Per Day
0.01
General Information
Last Activity
02-11-2012 09:51 AM
Join Date
05-09-2010
Referrals
0

3 Friends

  1. ChrisDixon ChrisDixon is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via ICQ to ChrisDixon
    • Send a message via MSN to ChrisDixon
    • Send a message via AIM to ChrisDixon
    • Send a message via Yahoo to ChrisDixon
    • Send a message via Skype™ to ChrisDixon
    ChrisDixon
  2. parocks parocks is online now

    Member

    parocks
  3. RIPLEYMOM RIPLEYMOM is offline

    Member

    RIPLEYMOM
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...