• Ender's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:44 PM
    Back to the subject at hand: The US has been after Iran's resources since way before the 1953 coup brought on by the US & the Brits to get rid of Iran's democratically elected PM, because he dared to try to give Iran's oil back to the people. All the sanction BS has always been about Iran's oil & NOT that they are a danger to anyone around them. The deal made by Obama was one of the best things he did & lifted the heavy burdens of sanctions off the Iranians. Was it perfect? No. But it was definitely a step in the right direction. I knew that Trump was a NeoCon war monger from his campaign speeches about bad Iran & how the Nuke deal was the worst thing ever done. Plus his lying & saying that the US was "giving" Iran millions of dollars, when the money was part of what our gov had taken from Iran's accounts & was owed to them. Getting out of the deal & then sanctioning Iran, who was in complete compliance, is an act of war.
    38 replies | 487 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:28 AM
    Michigan has open primaries. But a factor will be whether or not their congressional primary and presidential primary happen on the same date. In recent elections Michigan had an early presidential primary like in February, and then it had its primaries for other offices in the late spring or early summer (I think). If they end up having Justin's primary in the same election as the presidential primary, not many Democrats will want to take the Republican ballot, since they'll be more interested in deciding their own party's presidential candidate. But if the congressional primary is on a different date, there may be more crossover. It's a majority Republican district, but there is still a significant number of Democrats in it.
    6 replies | 153 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 07:12 PM
    It's kind of weird how you lumped in "anti-war" with those other points, like you see that as a negative. Kinda makes me wonder what the "4paul" part of your handle is for. Or maybe you've just decided to quit pretending you belonged here.
    72 replies | 786 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 05:18 PM
    By the same token, a guy who can shoot a revolver very fast relies on the same technicality. But that's the nature of the law in question. It is based on that technicality.
    38 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 05:16 PM
    It's not constitutional. But it doesn't matter if it is, because it's unjust, which is even more important than being unconstitutional. If the Constitution did permit the government to ban bump stocks, then that would only mean the Constitution was wrong, and the law would still be void for that reason.
    38 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 02:38 PM
    Really. Is that why the British home secretary has just signed a request from the US for Julian Assange to be extradited- where he faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/06/no_author/british-home-secretary-has-signed-extradition-order-to-send-julian-assange-to-us/ So much sympathy. :seenoevil:
    35 replies | 349 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 01:28 PM
    Yep. He's always pushed for war with Iran- even in his campaign- which led me to see that he was NOT a peace president hated by TPTB but a bad actor working with the swamp while pretending to be against the swamp.
    28 replies | 374 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 12:30 PM
    Has Chris McDaniel endorsed any of them?
    2 replies | 62 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 11:59 AM
    In post 23 you said that current laws were unconstitutional. Were you referring to some part of the Constitution other than the Second Amendment?
    38 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 09:56 AM
    I don't see you answering my question here. But if I understand your point, the bottom line for you is that you see nothing wrong with Trump banning bump stocks by executive order and you resent the fact that people would complain about it.
    38 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 08:22 AM
    Good story. The feds need to follow the Constitution and get out of this business.
    26 replies | 387 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 08:12 AM
    How do you know Mike Huckabee's daughter isn't?
    38 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 08:07 AM
    So other cops actually arrested one of their own? He must have had some other problems with the department aside from just being a common criminal on his off-time.
    8 replies | 403 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 08:03 AM
    What in the world are you getting at here? Do you deny that we have a basic right to own bump stocks that the government is obligated not to infringe?
    38 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 07:51 AM
    That description also matches Hillary Clinton.
    38 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 07:19 AM
    Why?
    38 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-14-2019, 06:17 AM
    I'm not big on putting energy and money into politics at all any more. But if you want Amash to win his primary, then supporting him in that primary will help him, and hurt the GOP/Trumpkin establishment. I can't go back to the LP because I've never been in it to begin with. I also won't go to it to begin with because I see no point in it. If we can muster 2% of the population to vote for someone, the best place to get the most leverage out of those votes is in a major party primary election, where the total turnout is low enough to make that 2% of the population a sizable amount, and then the candidate they support may well win that primary and represent one of the two major parties in a two-party general election. This is much more effective than holding out until that high-turnout two-party general election and throwing those votes at a third-party candidate. If that strategy isn't worth it (and it very well may not be), then an even worse strategy won't be worth it either. It would be better to put your money and energy into more fruitful endeavors than political activism to help yourself and others to live free in this unfree world.
    72 replies | 786 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 05:28 PM
    Should be for real private schools- charter schools must fce the same BS as public.
    28 replies | 325 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:56 PM
    Anti-gun actions that were never made into laws?
    246 replies | 1716 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:54 PM
    Backatcha.
    28 replies | 361 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:52 PM
    Nerp. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/second-amendment-news-by-the-numbers-bump-stock-ban-makes-trump-more-of-a-gun-control-president-than-obama-ever-was/
    246 replies | 1716 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:34 PM
    Very deep..... https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/joseph-mercola/degeneration-nation-gmos-toxic-chemicals-and-factory-farms/
    28 replies | 361 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:27 PM
    What part of that says to force GMO on anyone?
    28 replies | 361 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:25 PM
    You definitely cannot find any videos of either Ron or Rand ever talking in any positive way about any strategy to take the fight for the nomination to the convention by way of getting shadow delegates who were bound to other candidates to cast their votes at the convention for Ron Paul instead of the candidate they were bound to. That was a strategy that a lot of people here had their hopes pinned on. But it was never a strategy that Ron Paul or anyone officially involved in his campaign followed or supported in any way.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:21 PM
    That's not what I said.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 01:18 PM
    Unfortunately that's pretty prevalent around here of late.
    246 replies | 1716 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 12:55 PM
    The only delegate strategy Ron Paul ever talked about was the strategy of winning delegates by way of winning more votes than the other candidates at the primaries and caucuses. Ron Paul never once said, or hinted, that he had a strategy of somehow taking the fight all the way to the convention with shadow delegates after failing to win at the primaries and caucuses. Quite the opposite. He positively disavowed that and actually dropped out of the race after Romney cinched the nomination well before the convention.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 12:50 PM
    No. I mean the strategy of trying to nominate Ron Paul with "shadow delegates" at the convention after he had already dropped out of the race and was no longer trying to get the nomination.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 12:44 PM
    Many of us were actively working with the campaign. There were also many who were acting on their own and listening to the wrong people, and not the official campaign. The ones who wanted to nominate him at the convention against his wishes were in the latter category. From Ron Paul's perspective, that rule change was doing him a favor. He had already dropped out of the race and didn't want to continue the fight at the convention like some of those delegates and many here thought. There were other candidates who had more delegates, and the pluralities of delegates from more states, than Ron Paul did. But they gave their delegates to Romney, because Romney already had cinched the nomination. Like Ron Paul, they accepted defeat and didn't want to keep fighting a lost fight.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    06-13-2019, 12:34 PM
    I was a delegate at my state convention both of those years. I saw first-hand how the party leaders broke their own rules to stifle us both times. But the truth is that Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination at either national convention, because he had already decisively lost the primaries and caucuses. You can't just lose at the primaries and caucuses and then somehow win at the convention with shadow delegates. I know lots of naive Ron Paul supporters were banking on that. But it was silly. And Ron Paul himself never would have gone along with it even if it were feasible. In 2012 there was a conference call shortly before the convention with Ron Paul's official campaign and the Ron Paul supporting convention delegates where the campaign representative was asking the delegates to please not nominate Ron Paul there, and they even said that if they went ahead and did it, he would decline the nomination. A bunch of the delegates were upset because they had listened to people like a bunch of posters here at this website who led them to believe that continuing the fight to get him the party nomination all the way to the convention was their whole point in being delegates. But neither Ron Paul nor anyone officially in his campaign ever supported that. He very clearly and publicly conceded defeat long before the convention when Romney won enough delegates to win the nomination. Rand even endorsed Romney before the convention, after his father dropped out of the race. Some people here complained like Rand betrayed his dad or something, but that was never true. When the convention took place, Ron was no longer running in any sense of the word at all, neither publicly nor secretly, by his own choice, because he fully accepted that he had already lost.
    86 replies | 613 view(s)
More Activity
About Superfluous Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,784
Posts Per Day
4.89
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:32 PM
Join Date
10-10-2016
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. BV2 BV2 is offline

    Member

    BV2
  2. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

05-20-2019


03-14-2019


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 178 1231151101 ... LastLast

06-16-2019


06-14-2019


06-13-2019



Page 1 of 178 1231151101 ... LastLast